Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1061

PailSimon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

PailSimon
@TucanHolmes, Citobun, Mikehawk10, Jancarcu, NoonIcarus, My very best wishes, Horse Eye's Back, Czello, and Oranjelo100:
Uyghur genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a discussion on the talk page of Talk:Uyghur genocide#PailSimon, POV editing, misleading edit summaries, and removal of sourced content regarding POV editing, misleading edit summaries, removal of sourced content by PailSimon. Several editor expressed that this should be brought to ANI, so I am bringing it here. PailSimon has been bludgeoning on the talk page and generally is creating a battleground on the article to push their POV.

Examples: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]

Misleading or False edit summaries: [26], [27], [28], [29].

Citobun and myself (and I believe Horse Eye's Back) have expressed concerns that this problem is not limited to this article, but is occuring on other pages as well. I had hopes after the talk page discussion this might stop before ANI, but they have continued this morning, dispite multipe editor expressing strong concerns in the talk page discussion.

This was the edit and edit summary that originally peaked me attention, [30] (claiming NPR was a deprecated source as an excuse to remove content), followed up with [31].

Since several editors requested this to be brought here [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] (which I support) I have done so. PailSimon has also had multiple editors leave warnings regarding this problem on their talk page User talk:PailSimon#February 2021. I have pinged the editors that seem most involved but there are others as well.  // Timothy :: talk  18:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PailSimon

This is just a preliminary note to say I will go through each of those edits one by one and do my best to clearly explain my rationale behind them while also addressing some of the more bizarre accusations (misleading edit summaries).PailSimon (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No.1 As you can see from the edit summary I thought it WP:UNDUE to emphasis the opinion of one single nation to the extent that it was being emphasized.

No.2 The first part removed was collateral damage and I did not object to it's inclusion (Horse Eye's Back later readded the first part with no objection from myself). The issue was the second paragraph added which was later unilaterally agreed on the talk page to be removed due to sourcing issues etc.

No.3 As I have said on the talk page I mistakenly believed the user to be citing The Sun. This was a mistake on my part and it is worth pointing out (as I have pointed out above) that I did not object to its re-addition when Horse Eye's Back re-added it.

No.4 As pointed out in the edit summary the section in question was statements from countries and the organization in question is not a country.

No.5 I don't see how this is an objectionable edit from an standpoint given my explanation in the edit summary. Is it bad to restore the consensus version?

No.6 ibid

No.7 ibid

No.8 I do not really understand what could possibly be the issue with this edit.

No.9 The content was unrelated to the subject of the article given that it was referring to the 2009 Urumqi riots and not the present Chinese attitude to the Uyghurs which is what the article is about.

No.10 No clue what's so horrible about this edit either.

No.11 ibid

No.12 I don't see how avoiding WP:OVERCAT is a bad thing.

No.13 I think the edit summary speaks for itself here.

No.14 ibid

No.15 WP:ATTRIBUTION was being followed here

No.16 I was encouraging the user to stop edit warring and seek consensus on talk page per BRD.

No.17 The Sun is a deprecated source.

No.18 Edit summary speaks for itself. I am not sure how the addition of sourced content is objectionable in this case.

No.19 See No.5

No.20 I fixed a redundant statement as per the edit sumamry.

No.21 See No.5

I really dont understand what's so awful about any of these edits that warrants this being brought to ANI.PailSimon (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Misleading or False edit summaries" - No.1 See No.3 answer in post above. No.2 I have zero idea how this is misleading. I even asked TimothyBlue to explain to me what was misleading about it but he refused to do so for whatever reason. No.3 ibid No.4 ibid PailSimon (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TimothyBlue

I think PailSimon has the potential to be a good editor; I did not want to see this come to this point. But I believe the above shows a clear pattern of POV pushing and DE related to this article and as a whole I think the problem extends to China in general. As I said in the OP, I had hoped the talk page discussion would be enough to stop this problem, but I don't believe there is any indication from PailSimon that they are WP:LISTENing to other editors concerns about their editing. I believe if some help is provided at this point, possibly with a mentor, a productive editor will emerge. But if the above pattern is not addressed, it will only affirm the behavior, it will get worse and a potentially good editor will be lost.

I would like to see PailSimon voluntarily agree to abstain from working on articles related to China/Central Asia, get an experienced (uninvolved) mentor, and focus on making positive contributions to articles in other areas. This would avoid having to place a negative mark on their record and it could be reviewed at 6m with input from their mentor if the problem does not repeat in other areas. I almost always think editors should be given the opportunity to voluntarily work on a problem, rather than receive a bad mark; PailSimon should be afforded this opportunity.

PailSimon, I know there are some subject areas I am interested in, but it would only result in problems if I go there. It wouldn't be productive to edit in these areas and it certainly wouldn't be enjoyable. An example: I'm gay and I'd be banned in less than a week if I decided to edit articles related to LGBT issues (I become positively unglued over anti-lgbt userboxes, I don't even both reporting them). So these areas I've decided to stay away from, not because I have to, but because I know its the best for me. I don't read these articles, I don't engage in discussions, I just stay away and avoid the pain and problems (I know this example is different from the current issue, but you see my point). I think your responses show you have a blind spot in the CHina area (again as we all do in some areas). One of the best lessons I've learned is to know what articles I need to leave alone for others to work on.

Also please don't see the idea of having a mentor as in anyway negative (I have adopted two, CaptainEek and El C); its very helpful and even admins like CaptainEek have more experienced editors they look to as mentors.

I offer this advice with nothing but goodwill; please consider it, no need to directly respond. The items I've bolded above are directly specifically to you, again with goodwill.  // Timothy :: talk  22:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

In light of recent developments and this thread I strike my comments. See my proposal below.  // Timothy :: talk  21:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see have me applying WP:ATTRIBUTION, WP:COATRACK, WP:CONSENSUS, removing deprecated sources etc justifies this whole overblown song and dance. It seems to me like you're just making a mountain over a molehill. Perhaps if you explained what was so awful about the above?PailSimon (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The speedy reply shows you didn't even bother to take time to WP:LISTEN and consider my post; this is in the hands of the community at this point, they can consider your editing and responses.  // Timothy :: talk  22:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Consider what exactly? You haven't said anything substantial beyond "take a step away for some vague reason". Step away because why exactly? Because I have removed deprecated sources and enforced WP:CONSENSUS? The fact that you're taking me to ANI over removing deprecated sources among other things means it's hard to assume good faith. I would also note that you didn't answer my question PailSimon (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Mikehawk10

To give a bit of background as to my involvement on the Uyghur genocide article, I was the one who initially created it as a new editor as a part of a class assignment in 2019. That class has since terminated, and I have gained a bunch more experience on Wikipedia since then. The class generally sparked an interest of mine in the topic area, and I've kept following it in the news, as the facts on the ground have changed into what we have access to now. After a decent amount of time away from Wikipedia, I returned and then began to edit articles, including ones related to the topic area.

From the beginning of PailSimon's disruptive edits on the page, it is clear that the user has engaged in prohibited POVPUSHing. PailSimon appears to have become involved in the Uyghur genocide article around December of 2020, when the user made an edit that removed a use of the term "Uyghur genocide" and instead substituted "Chinese policies towards the Uyghurs" as a descriptor of the same actions in its place. PailSimon appears to have first edited the corresponding talk page on December 9, 2020. The first day on the talk page, PailSimon declared that, "Wikipedia has no standards when it comes to China or any other geopolitical competitor of the West unfortunately."

The editor has continued to edit with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset in mind ever since this point. The editor has subsequently affirmed that they do not believe that a genocide is occurring in Xinjiang, writing that the Uyghur genocide is "just accusations." This is certainly their right as an individual. However, editors are required to make edits to Wikipedia that improve articles in line with information provided by reliable sources, not simply their opinions, and PailSimon has crossed several lines and repeatedly violated policies against disruptive editing in pushing their own viewpoint, as described in the initial report and as I recapitulate below.

The editor has removed information cited from perennial reliable sources that contradict the editor's preferred narrative that no genocide is occurring, including edits (1, 2, 3) that repeatedly removed information sourced from National Public Radio and provided misleading edit summaries in doing so. The lattermost of those edits also removed content sourced from The Independent that document medical experimentation performed on Uyghurs by the Chinese Government. In another series of edits, the user changed language in the article to cast doubt upon reporting, replacing the word "mentioned" with "claimed," which goes against advice listed in MOS:CLAIM. After these edits were reverted by Horse Eye's Back, PailSimon reverted HEB's reversion.

The user has also added palpably false information to the article, even when sources already present state the opposite. One example is this edit, in which PailSimon inserted that "the ruling Liberal Party [did] not [cast] a vote either way" on Canada's non-binding recognition statement. This was an addition of false information contradicted by sources already present in the article, and this addition may have served to cast doubt upon Canada's actions as a result of this false information being included. I don't see a reason why this could have been added if the editor had done their due diligence. Later, after the Dutch Parliament issued a similar resolution, PailSimon attempted to remove information from the lead relating both to the Dutch and Canadian Parliament votes.

The editor has casted aspersions in edit summaries, including here, where PailSimon bizarrely accused NoonIcarus of disruptive editing.

Overall, it has become clear to me that PailSimon has been engaging in a WP:POVPUSH that has risen to the level of disruptive editing. I believe that administrative intervention is justified given the current situation and that a topic ban may be appropriate given the history of POV pushing. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There isn't very much different in this statement to Timothy Blues statement so see my own statement above for a response. To respond to the "adding false information" charge, I misread the source admitantly and thought it said that the Liberal Party MPs abstained when in fact it was only the Liberal Party Cabinet that abstained. This was a legitimate mistake on my part and doesn't really deserve all the hoo-ha that Mike is churning up. PailSimon (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And also you have cited one of my edits as violating MOS:CLAIM when in reality it supports my edits - "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." PailSimon (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by NoonIcarus

Before commenting, I'll point out that PailSimon currently has an open sockpuppet investigation request (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician) that I believe should be taken into account in the discussion.

That being said, and seeking not to repeat much of what has been said, in brief PailSimon has demonstrated disruptive editing and edit warring that needs administrative intervention to stop. They have blanked warnings issued against them in their talk page and accussed other editors of disruptive editing, but has decried WP:WIKIHOUNDING and "harassment" when their behaviour has been scrutinized.

For these reasons I think that a ban is an appropriate measure to address the issue and fully support it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jancarcu

Due to time constraints and a lack of personal involvement on my part in this issue, I will be abstaining from detailed comment on this issue. Some of PailSimon's edits and behaviours are concerning, while others may be justified. Jancarcu (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Citobun

I was not involved in any of the many disputes at Uyghur genocide. I commented on the talk page discussion that I had also observed a consistent pattern of POV editing by PailSimon on other China-related topics (e.g. Hong Kong and Taiwan), coupled with the use of misleading/disingenuous edit summaries, and provided diffs to support those claims. PailSimon responded in part with a baseless personal attack, accusing me of being a "a Hong Kong localist" with "a single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible". A serious accusation, absent any evidence, which is patently untrue. That pretty much sums up his POV-driven battleground mentality toward Wikipedia. He similarly cast aspersions against User:TimothyBlue ([37]) and does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, but to shift the narrative on content he views as "demonising China" via edit warring/page-policing (as at Uyghur genocide), and by casting aspersions against those who question such POV editing. So I agree with OP's concerns and also object strongly to PailSimon's baseless personal attacks against myself and others. Citobun (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Its ironic to me that your evidencless post above accuses me of casting aspersions when you've done exactly that. PailSimon (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The evidence is in my original comment, to which I provided a link. Citobun (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

In which case see my own response to it.PailSimon (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

To which I replied thusly. BTW, to get back on topic – I'd like to note that you've still not retracted your baseless personal attacks despite being alerted to Wikipedia policy on the matter. Citobun (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

SeePailSimon (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you really just re-link to the personal attack rather than retract it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing there that's a personal attack.PailSimon (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

How is that not a personal attack? The difference has already been explained to you. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Calling somebody a "Hong Kong localist" is an objective description, its not intended to be a value-laden judgment or an insult or any sort of inditement.PailSimon (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Is that why you followed it up by accusing me of possessing "a single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible"? Because that isn't a "value-laden judgement" nor an inditement? Good lord. What disingenuous nonsense. You seem to be incapable of knowing when to stop, and I hope you are indefinitely banned sooner rather than later. Citobun (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

On a side note, PailSimon did not provide any evidence for their accusations. This is getting ridiculous. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TucanHolmes

This is coming in a bit late, but I couldn't find the time to formulate my statement sooner.

I regularly check the Uyghur genocide article for vandalism and patent nonsense, as well as bad-faith and POV edits (which, with such a topic, happen quite often). From what I've seen, PailSimon's edits are definitely aimed at softening any accusations (for example, they repeatedly tried to cut or remove a sourced section about medical experiments, see [38] and [39]), and numerous edits already mentioned in this notice (which I won't relist here) reveal a clear POV. It's not a radical one (they are not outright denying human rights abuses), but it's... favourable towards China, and they seem hell-bent on rewording the lead in a way that focusses less on the genocidal character of the human rights abuses carried out in Xinjang. Their POV-pushing (as far as I can tell) isn't blatant; they usually employ subtler tactics (e.g. misleading edit summaries, see the other statements and comments). Some of their edits are legitimate (like removing G4 categories or removing unreliable sources), which makes it difficult to discern whether their non-legitimate edits were in good or bad faith.

Comments by other editors

• Comment: In the list of diffs, I see some legitimate edits (e.g. removal of a G4/CfD category) and some illegitimate edits (e.g. mischaracterization of a source as deprecated). A more detailed listing of diffs with why those edits may have issues (e.g. similar to PailSimon's diff-by-diff response) might be helpful for examining a broader pattern, since not all of the diffs given in the original post are problematic. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey MarkH21, I've tried to do this in my statement. Is that more along the lines of what you are looking for?— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Question @TimothyBlue: What action are you expecting from ANI? Jerm (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi Jerm, sorry for the late reply I have limited internet and my mind is foggy atm (see my userpage for an explanation).

At this point I'd like to see PS banned from China related articles and generally placed on a 1RR restriction, advised to find an uninvolved experienced mentor, and be warned about POV pushing, LISTENing, misleading edit summaries, edit warring, and battlegrounding. (I actually inquired with El C if the page could entirely be placed on a 1RR restriction).

I'll give a final example of the battlegrounding, misleading statements, edit warring and POV pushing.

• 23:42, 25 February 2021 Content is added by Mikehawk10 [40] with the no objection from other editors.
• 08:51, 27 February 2021 Pail Simon removes the content [41] with a misleading edit summary
• 11:26, 27 February 2021 I start a talk page discussion about restoring the content [42]. Two other editors support the restoration.
• 16:09, 28 February 2021 Content is restored by Mikehawk10 per support of three editors on the talk page discussion [43]
• 03:45, 1 March 2021 PailSimon again removes the content [44] with a misleading edit summary.
• 08:48, 1 March 2021 it is restored by forth editor My very best wishes [45]
• 11:35, 1 March 2021 PS again removes the content [46] with an insulting and misleading edit summary.

This has continued right up to now, dispite the talk page discussion and this ANI thread.

Here they are directly edit warring with four other editors. This edit warring alone should be enough for a block. They've engaged in a similar pattern with others. Combined with the other examples above, I believe it merits the sanction I propose for DE.

They have shown no indication they are willing to LISTEN in anyway to others, either here or on article talk pages.

From the above comments and talk page discussions, I am clearly not alone in believing this is a serious problem. I count Czello, Mikehawk10, Normchou, TucanHolmes, El C, Citobun, Jancarcu, NoonIcarus, Horse Eye's Back, My very best wishes, Oranjelo100 plus myself (12 editors) that have recently expressed significant concerns about Pail Simon. The excuses they have given above are simply not believable when the entire pattern is taken into consideration.  // Timothy :: talk  20:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The constant edit warring alone is enough for a block. I would support a topic ban and/or a long-term block but not indefinitely, thanks for the response TimothyBlue. Jerm (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Jerm They have placed an edit warring notice on my talk page. My patience is over. This is now NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  21:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: This is a completely disingenuous account of the dispute. The content in question has been the result of multiple previous talk page discussions (conveniently omitted here) which concluded that the text in question not be included. This is the relevant context that has been ignored here PailSimon (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Just as a clarifying note, I only "restored" the page after seeing that the lede had been partially restored on Feb. 28 by another editor. I've also been subject to a bizarre edit warring template being placed on my page by PailSimon for allegedly engaging in "repeated edit warring." — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

See my above reply to TimothyBlue. PailSimon (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It should be noted that Africa–China_relations is another article where PS has been actively challenging other editors. In particular, in this conversation, they seemed self-absorbed purely in the process of editorial decisions as a tool to prevent valid edits from being made—e.g., repeating you need to gain a consensus or something in that line without showing any interest in elaborating what actually prevented a consensus from being reached. Normchou ^💬 20:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC); edited 02:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We have reached a very strange point if we are now attacking other editors for discouraging edit warring.... PailSimon (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Pail Simon may believe that he/she is doing the right thing, but they are clearly ignoring arguments from other editors. The changes seem to reflect his/her own worldview and not Wikipedia policies. I would advise him/her to step away from the article, and stop reverting all the changes. Dimadick (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Brief note by El_C

I'd like to note that I have also found my interactions with PailSimon on that article talk page to have been, erm, challenging (diff). El_C 18:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I should have handled myself better there I will admit.PailSimon (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Breif note by Czello

Unfortunately PailSimon is still being a bit WP:BATTLEGROUND-y with his edit summaries. This was unhelpful and the edit he was undoing was not disruptive behaviour. There is a lot of content on that talk page and it's more than likely that My very best wishes simply missed it; given how often he calls edits he doesn't like "disruptive" I would advise that he reads WP:AGF on priority. — Czello 19:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

All you have to do is look on the talk page to see at least two previous talk page discussions regarding the lead. If My very best wishes is not bothered to go and look then he should not be editing the article.PailSimon (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@PailSimon: Once again, you fail to understand WP:AGF. He may well have looked and simply missed it -- don't assume that he simply "couldn't be bothered". In fact, his edit summary makes it clear that he did look. Labeling good-faith edits as disruptive when they're clearly not is one of the reasons you're here right now: given how polite he was in his edit summary, only for you to react like this, can you see why some of us think you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? — Czello 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no way he could have missed it if he actually surveyed the talk page properly, one of the sections is even titled "Revised lede" which is a major hint to say the least. He may have lazily glanced over it but its really impossible to miss if you actually take the time to read the talk page properly. When somebody acts like this its difficult to assume good faith even though you may want to.PailSimon (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@PailSimon: The talk page isn't small, dude. There are currently 32 headings on there. It's very easy to miss a specific conversation. That's why we AGF when someone politely says they couldn't see it. — Czello 21:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If you actually look through it, as opposed to briefly skimming it really is not.PailSimon (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@PailSimon: Do you not think your absolute refusal to see things from other editors' perspectives (and again, your absolute refusal to assume good faith) is at all a problem here? — Czello 21:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't confuse me not agreeing with you as not seeing things from other's perspective, something I don't see you doing here with me. I get the sense that you're more focused on pointing and wagging the finger at me than anything else. PailSimon (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon Honestly I think you dug your own grave with this one. All you had to do was be civil to other editors, AGF, and not try to turn Wikipedia into a battleground. I hope when you come back to the page a month from now you'll have taken this on board. It could be worth reading WP:OWN while you're at it. — Czello 08:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have always attempted to assume good faith unless when presented with strong evidence to the contrary. Perhaps if you did the same with me there would be less issues.PailSimon (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This thread, and your editing history, shows you're not doing a good enough job of assuming good faith. Perhaps if you did the same with me there would be less issues -- you realise that you are the common factor in these "issues", right? — Czello 13:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Well as WP:AGF says - "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism".PailSimon (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not evidence to the contrary, or vandalism. — Czello 18:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Well that's your personal opinion and unfortunately we are going to have to agree to disagree.PailSimon (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

False edit warring notice placed by PailSimon

PailSimon has placed an false edit warring notice on my talk page [47]. I have reverted this edit exactly once and it was with the support of four editors. Taken with the above comments towards others, they are clearly harrassing editors now.  // Timothy :: talk  21:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon really needs to take a time out from editing this page. This is just sheer WP:BATTLEGROUND editing now. — Czello 21:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing false about it (see reply in the 'Comments by other editors' section) PailSimon (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That section makes it fairly clear that you're the one edit warring. — Czello 08:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Only if you never bothered to read my reply.PailSimon (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for NOTHERE block

The false edit warring notice placed by PailSimon on my talk page is the last straw for me.

Per to the above comments regarding:

• Battlegrounding
• POV pushing
• Edit warring
• Refusal to LISTEN here and on talk pages
• DE on Uyghur genocide
• Leaving false edit warring notices on editor talk pages

I propose PailSimon be blocked as NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  21:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked - discussion may continue I agree the edit-warring notice placed on your page after a single revert, given PailSimon had reverted three times today, is the last straw. I have partially blocked them from Uyghur genocide for one month whilst this discussion continues. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite beat me to it. I endorse this block. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: This is not his first revert.PailSimon (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It is in the last 24 hours, during which time you have reverted three times. Looking at the last month, he has made five reverts; you have made 21. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Endorse partial block per this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

These are all nonsense accusations debunked above.PailSimon (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have doubts as to the efficacy of partial blocks or TBANS for PS. My impression is that this user feels they are always right. No one is always right, not even me. Their responses here do not engender confidence. If others agree, I would endorse a WP:CBAN for WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. It is always to be hoped that lesser measures will prove effective, but that would depend on the user's willingness to learn and grow. Just don't see it. If CBANned, I would encourage the user to edit constructively on other Wikipedias/WIkimedia projects and then appeal the CBAN in six months. (Assuming they are not blocked elsewhere. Haven't looked.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"My impression is that this user feels they are always right." - I have actually admitted I was wrong at least two times during this discussion.PailSimon (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I'd be in favour of this. I had hoped this ANI would make PailSimon realise where he went wrong, but he seems to be mostly unrelenting in his ways. I have no reason to believe he'll be any better in a week's time after the current partial block ends. And between then and now I suspect he'll just take his battleground mentality to other articles (such as the aforementioned Africa-China relations article). I haven't seen him seriously address the bullet list above by TimothyBlue, which makes me think he's suffering from a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. — Czello 09:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support the block They did something similar on the talk page of another editor, Amigao, regarding the Africa–China relations article mentioned above. The revision history of that article, however, shows PS was actually more involved in edit-warring behavior, making iffy edits and overriding others' edits. Their tendency of using the process/procedure merely as a tool to prevent valid edits from being made is a worrisome signal pointing to WP:NOTHERE. Normchou ^💬 02:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yea reverting back to the stable version will never be edit warring no matter how much you spin it.PailSimon (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You keep calling it the "stable version" -- I'm not sure you know what that means. There are now 5+ editors who are against you on this. You don't WP:OWN the page. — Czello 09:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Only two editors (originally one) opposed on that page. Please follow the discussion carefully.PailSimon (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Only two opposed it? So you agree that consensus is now in favour of including the lead? — Czello 10:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Again you need to follow and read things carefully. You're confusing two different pages here.PailSimon (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I misread there -- though my point stands about your definition of "stable version", which found it's way onto the Uyghur article. — Czello 13:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It really does not if you look at the talk page history going back months.PailSimon (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. — Czello 17:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Luckily for me it has not then.PailSimon (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Czello, you are correct that 5+ editors have supported inclusion of the content: TimothyBlue and Czello (obviously opposed), Oranjelo100,[48] Mikehawk10,[49] My very best wishes,[50]. I'm sure others would have expressly supported, but didn't both to comment because the consensus was clear. Two admins saw this and imposed a block on PS for edit warring. Now they are just being a timesink disputing what is obvious.  // Timothy :: talk  16:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. As I have reiterated there are multiple previous talk page discussions regarding that very lead introduction which concluded that it should not be included. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge their existence does not change that.PailSimon (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we and PailSimon are talking about two different things. You and I are talking about the lead for the Uyghur genocide article, whereas he's talking about the Africa-China relations article. Either way, where you and I are concerned, we now have a consensus to include the lead on the Uyghur genocide article, contrary to what PailSimon believes. — Czello 17:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No you're still confused.PailSimon (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• PailSimon, You stated above: "reverting back to the stable version will never be edit warring",[51] - you know this is false and you have been told by multiple admins and editors it is false.  // Timothy :: talk  16:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

See my above response.PailSimon (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support either an indef NOTHERE block for PailSimon or a siteban, per the evidence provided above. Nsk92 (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from any articles related to China or Hong Kong at minimum, per the diffs evidenced by Citobun here. Not familiar with their broader editing in regards to a site ban (it should be noted that a NOTHERE block as a result of community discussion is a community site ban). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, having taken a look at some of the talk page comments and removal of sourced material diffs (at the same link) compiled by Timothy and Citobun I'd also support a site ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Which sourced material diffs are you referring to?PailSimon (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: continuing this thread in the below section. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support a WP:NOTHERE ban or (at minimum) a topic ban from China-related subjects per the evidence presented above and at Talk:Uyghur genocide. Citobun (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support a WP:NOTHERE ban per evidence above. At minimum (agreeing with Citobun), I think a minimum topic ban from China-related articles is needed. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support reluctantly the ban (making clearer what I said above). I was hoping PailSimon would see where he went wrong, but this thread has seen him double-down resort to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This could have been a wake-up call for him, as I think there is a good editor somewhere in there, but his obstinacy has shown that he might not be compatible with the project. — Czello 13:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have admitted I was wrong on four separate occasions during this discussion.PailSimon (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you have, well done -- but there have been other areas where you doubled-down: such as the aforementioned labeling of good faith edits as disruptive, for example. — Czello 14:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support a WP:NOTHERE ban per the evidence presented here, and the fact that their POV-pushing is achieved by gaming the system (esp. abusing copyright and reliable sources policies, mixed with misleading edit summaries) which necessitates the assumption that their editing is done in bad faith, thus destroying the foundation that allows editors to work collaboratively, i.e. every one of their edits has to be checked in the future. They also refuse to back down, or even just retract personal attacks. In short, their behaviour is incompatible with Wikipedia as a project. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have backed down and retracted personal attacks during this very discussion. Have you even read it? If you had you would have seen it.PailSimon (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This is misleading. You have not retracted the personal attack noted in the section below. Citobun (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support at the very least a WP:TBAN on China-related articles, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support block per Timothy or any other sanctions that others suggest. That user just does not seem to be a "net positive" for the project, being significantly involved in POV editing and conflicts with other users. And this is not just Uyghurs in China, but whitewashing crimes by communist regimes which they committed against minorities. For example, [52],[53],[54]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE and the provided reasons above. I ask that special attention is given to the current related open sockpuppet investigation request (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician). --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on China-related articles, broadly construed, per the above. I would be OK with an indefinite WP:NOTHERE ban, though I don't think it's the most narrowly tailored preventative solution. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon is still defending his personal attacks, against which no action has been taken

The personal attack in question. His continuing defence of this personal attack. Please just ban this person on blatant WP:NOTHERE grounds and a seeming inability to acknowledge Wikipedia policy or admit to any wrongdoings. Citobun (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I dont see how calling you a Hong Kong localist is a personal attack, either way it was not intended as one. I have "a seeming inability to acknowledge Wikipedia policy or admit to any wrongdoings"? I have admitted I was wrong at least three times on this page alone and on multiple occasions on other pages. What are you talking about?PailSimon (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

So retract the personal attacks against me and TimothyBlue and apologise. Easy. And please stop the disingenuous replies. You did not merely call me a "Hong Kong localist". Citobun (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

What personal attack have I made against TimothyBlue? I don't understand what you're referring to here. Its true that I did not merely call you a Hong Kong localist but that's what I called you here and nothing else. Let stop veering off topic.PailSimon (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have a feeling you know what I am referring to, considering I already commented on your personal attack against TimothyBlue and you replied to me. So just so we're clear: it has been explained to you what constitutes a personal attack, it has been repeatedly explained to you that you have made personal attacks, and you remain unrepentant. Citobun (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well first I have to actually know what you're referring to but now that I know what is being discussed yes I do retract that TimothyBlue comment and apologize to said user.PailSimon (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That comment appears a personal attack per WP:NPA bullets #2 and #3. However, it does need to be considered in context, which was this comment. I've taken a skim through the diffs listed by Citobun in that discussion. By themselves they obviously demonstrate a pattern of diluting words, which I don't think alone is problematic, but the diluted words no longer represent the sources accurately, which is a problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain by what you mean when you say I dilute words?PailSimon (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure. For example this diff even though the source says "sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong" (the new wording appears to make the law seem more legitimate than the source does). Here where the source says "And it was the latest in a quick series of aggressive moves by the pro-Beijing establishment that had the effect of sidelining the pro-democracy movement." And here, more of the same. I'm willing to assume good faith on some of the other dilutions, for example on the argument that the source picked may be biased, or is a primary source, which is true for some of them. But for the 3 examples I cite, and various others, it isn't really true and it's hard to AGF that this is just an attempt to 'restore NPOV', because these edits don't actually represent the sources at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Those were copyright violations.PailSimon (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Article: The national security law imposed by China on Hong Kong, has curtailed free speech of Hong Kongers both, within the territory and abroad.

Source: The national security law that China has imposed on Hong Kong is already curtailing speech in the territory

Your edit: It has been described as curtailing free speech of Hong Kongers both, within the territory and abroad.

2. Article: anyone criticizing China and traveling to Hong Kong automatically becomes potentially eligible to be arrested

Source: Anyone who criticises China and travels to Hong Kong is potentially at risk of arrest under the new law.

Your edit: anyone violating the law and traveling to Hong Kong automatically becomes potentially eligible to be arrested.

3. Article: on a wave of massive protests against the government and concerns about the sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong.

Source: sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong

Your edit: on a wave of massive protests against the government and concerns about the sweeping new national security law legislated by the Beijing government.

You were correcting copyright violations? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The third edit you list is evidently a copyright violation as both the source and the article contain the phrase "sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong". The first edit was just me applying WP:ATTRIBUTION and the second one was improved wording as the content was vague (what on earth does criticising china mean in this context?)PailSimon (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That is in no way a copyright violation; re-using a single phrase misses the bar for that by a country mile. I am less and less inclined to assume good faith, and believe this is an instance of Gaming the system. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If I read WP:COPYVIO I get the impression that copying word for word an 11 word long phrase counts as a copyvio. PailSimon (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This does not violate copyright; for that matter, it's not even plagiarism. Per Wikipedia:Plagiarism § What is not plagiarism:

Plagiarism is less a concern where the content both lacks creativity and where the facts and ideas being offered are common knowledge. [...] phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information [...] lack sufficient creativity to require attribution.

Besides, this is a red herring: If it was the copyright violation you were concerned about, rewording it in such a minor way doesn't change anything.

Please stop Wikilawyering! It is obvious that you're using these guidelines as cover for POV editing. You're wasting everyone's time (including your own). TucanHolmes (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO makes clear that this is a copyvio. You're not allowed to copy and paste sentences into articles from sources.PailSimon (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if we assume that this is a copyright violation (I would argue it isn't), this doesn't change the fact that your edits don't address that issue. From the policy you yourself cited:

Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism.

As I've mentioned above, this is a red herring. ProcrastinatingReader already asked you that same question in the beginning, and I've now explained the problem in excruciating detail, yet you still haven't answered anything; you're deflecting. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be right and I should have rephrased it more thoroughly to deal with the copyright problem.PailSimon (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no copyvio. But by your own admission above all you did was insert your POV, you did not correct what you are claiming is a copyright problem.  // Timothy :: talk  13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There certainly was a copyvio (that is evident per the above TucanHolmes provided copyvio quotation) and I attempted to fix it although it was a somewhat inadequate fix as noted above. What pov did I insert exactly? I simply rephrased the article while retaining the exact same semantic content.PailSimon (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I doubled down so harshly; in retrospect, I should've explained it like that in the first place. Copyright is a difficult topic :(. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not have the time right now to go through this entire thread, but this section alone is enough. The "Hong Kong locals" bit may include a geographic objectivity, but the rest, "your editing practices which includes a single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible", that is just a blatant violation of WP:AGF. That's from a week or more ago, and I wouldn't have blocked for it now, but PailSimon had to go and defend it, and play ignorant. I refuse to accept that they didn't realize what they were saying, and that makes this move back into blockable territory. The claim of copyright violation is ridiculous, and the charge of "watering down" is acceptable because example and context for these POV edits are provided. If everyone, including some seasoned editors, says "not a copyvio", then maintaining that it is one is either obstinate or incompetent. In both cases, it's disruptive. I blocked PailSimon for a week. As I was placing that I saw that this comes on the heels of a partial block a few days ago, by Black Kite, and that makes a NOTHERE block seem even more reasonable; Black Kite, I wonder if you have any thoughts on that--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Drmies I blocked them from that article because they were being utterly disruptive on it; I am fine with any other sanctions that there are consensus for, obviously. Personally, I think we are looking at a China topic ban at the least. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite / Drmies, if either of you have a bit of time could you please consider closing out this discussion. A unanimous consensus seems to have formed above and there has been a lull in discussion for several days. I am just concerned that the thread will be archived with no action. Thank you. Citobun (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

David Gerard and Scott Siskind

On Talk:Slate Star Codex/Archives/2022/October#Potential new COI between David Gerard and Slate Star Codex?, Gbear605 noted that David Gerard had been a source for a New York Times story on the blog Slate Star Codex. Gbear605 asked if this constituted a conflict of interest, since David Gerard is an active editor of that article. In the ensuing discussion, Distelfinck linked to a tweet of David Gerard's which said "why say in a million words what you can say in 14". This is clear reference to Fourteen words. Rather than contest that he had called Scott Siskind (the blog's author) a Neo-Nazi, David Gerard tried to justify his comment and even repeated the "14 words" allusion. There seem to be clear pro and anti editors involved in the talk page discussions so some friction is expected, but I find this David Gerard's comments about a living person unacceptable. Mo Billings (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I urge all to read the linked discussion, and the following section.

A group of editors, including Mo Billings, who appear to be fans of the subject, are claiming a COI that doesn't fit any requirement of WP:COI, and keep not putting together any complaint in a proper form, preferring to cast aspersions.

One has raised an off-wiki tweet. In the course of the existing discussion, I have linked an email from 2014 from the author of the blog, in which he literally says he is an advocate of "human biodiversity" and wishes to use the blog to propagate this going forward - not yet in an RS so not usable on the article, but arguably supporting my off-wiki tweeted summary of the author's views with the author's own words.

Not that an off-wiki tweet is a WP:COI at Wikipedia, and Mo Billings should understand this. We have a group of Slate Star Codex fans who seem to think not being a fan constitutes a COI, and editors of opposing views should be voted off the article.

There is also an effort to get non-RSes into the article.

Various editors casting aspersions, including Mo Billings, have been asked to properly substantiate their claims of COI in the accepted manner, or stop casting aspersions. Instead, they have continued casting aspersions - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a fan of Slate Star Codex. I have no particular interest in it. I am not a contributor there. I am not even a reader of the blog (although I did read some pieces of Siskind's earlier work because of a dispute about including his name in the article here). My two edits to the COI discussion are this and this. I have already stated that David Gerard's involvement did not constitute a COI based on our guidelines. This ANI discussion is about his specific comments about Scott Siskind in that discussion. Mo Billings (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You're claiming a COI, but not a COI per policy? That is literally WP:ASPERSIONS, surely? - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I am reporting that you called Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi. Please stop trying to deflect from the issue. Mo Billings (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It turns out I'm allowed to have off-wiki opinions about article subjects, including that the scientific racism advocate who sought out scientific racists for his blog and was famous for his prolixity could be summarised as "why say in a million words what you can say in 14" - and that this has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and does not constitute any sort of COI, either in Wikipedia terms or in colloquial terms, and that you're making a bizarre claim saying it does - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The allegation by Mo Billings notes that you have defended these allegations on Wikipedia, so this is not about your off-wiki behavior Aapjes (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

David, it seems clear that you have a COI, per WP:COI and WP:BLPCOI. You've acted as a source for a newspaper about this person, and tweeted about him. Now you're writing about him on WP, using that newspaper article as a source and removing criticism of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I was one of many sources, and not even one that rated naming. I was asked to comment as an expert on the LessWrong subculture, and you can read WP:COI on subject-matter experts as well as I can: Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. And no, I have no financial interest in the article - David Gerard (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not what's meant by subject-matter expert. You've been tweeting negatively about this person since at least June 2020 (that's based on a five-second Google search, so maybe longer). See WP:BLPCOI, which is policy: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki— ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest". SarahSV ^(talk) 00:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

See above. None of this is a Wikipedia COI, or even a colloquial COI. Your argument comes down to a claim that non-fans of a subject should not be allowed to edit an article about the subject, and you know that's never been the case at Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You've been tweeting negatively about this person since at least June 2020 - I'm concerned about the precedent you're proposing to set here. I don't think "has tweeted negatively about someone" constitutes a significant controversy or dispute in the context of BLPCOI, and I'm fairly certain that that's not how the policy was understood when it was drafted and approved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I mostly get that argument from the cryptocurrency spammers, who seem to sincerely think that if you're not an advocate you shouldn't be allowed to talk about their favourite thing 'cos that's a conflict of interest - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

And the obvious extension of this concept would be that anyone who tweeted positively about this person must also now have a conflict of interest and be prohibited from editing the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to note here, I'm the editor who most recently brought up an apparent COI on the article talk page, and I realized now that I handled it incorrectly and acted in a way more like casting aspersion than I intended (I thought I was handling it correctly but realize now that I misread the guidelines on handling COIs). Gbear605 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is now one of those discussions that are going across the wiki. Here's the RSN section: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reason_and_WaPo_on_NYT_on_Slate_Star_Codex - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're talking to the New York Times as a source on a subject, you should probably find something else to edit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

NYT is rated Generally Reliable at WP:RSP, and has consistently been found to be a top-tier source. It's not perfect, but your claim is almost entirely incorrect in the context of Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You missed my point completely. There are 6 million articles on this project, and you appear to have a conflict of interest on one of them. This one. Why not avoid it? It's fine for Wikipedia editors to be part of the news -- but they should edit other topics. Whether or not the Times is "Generally Reliable" isn't at all relevant here; and I can comment on RSP elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Last I checked, Wikipedia wanted topic experts to stick around, and nowhere have I seen any indication that David Gerard has used Wikipedia to continue any dispute. It's weird how often Wikipedia editors confuse NPOV with being conflict-averse, and that seems like the only plausible reason to invoke WP:BLPCOI. There is not "interest" here. We all have opinions. Being open about those opinions is not some unforgivable sin. Responding to people about those opinions on some other website is not an inherently bad thing. Having people point-out that someone has an opinion is not a valid way to disqualify that person. Good lord, what kind of precedent would that set? Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI here --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking forward to the diffs - David Gerard (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Per your wider online activities. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Do you have diffs from Wikipedia? If you don't have those, then your findings are unlikely to be, for example, WP:COIN material. Being a critic of an article subject is not a COI - David Gerard (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

        You regularly make your personal dislike of Scott Siskind known throughout the internet. This is beyond having a run-of-the-mill personal opinion -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

On both the RS noticeboard and the Star Codex talk page, David Gerard has accused Scott Siskind of being a support of scientific racism, while saying on the talk page that there is no WP:RS to support this allegation. I think that this is another instance where David Gerard made an unacceptable personal attack on a living person, who is not here to defend himself. Aapjes (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article is, of course, support for this claim, as I noted on the talk page at length, also citing the SSC article the NYT linked as their evidence for the claim - David Gerard (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article doesn't claim that Siskind is a Neo-Nazi or a supporter of "scientific racism" (which is not the same thing, anyway). You argued that the part on Murray proves this, but the NYT article only makes the vague assertion that Siskind aligned himself with Charles Murray, but doesn't say how. Surely this cannot be interpreted as a claim that Murray and Siskind have identical beliefs on all topics, which would be an absurd claim to make about two different people. If you follow the link they provide, he only did so on class differences, not racial differences. The page on Murray also merely claims that one of his works, The Bell Curve, has been accused of supporting "scientific racism", not that it is an established fact, or that any of his many other publications have been accused of such. The blog post by Siskind that the NYT article uses as evidence also makes no mention of The Bell Curve.

On the topic of Siskind, you seem to believe that we should treat highly contentious claims as fact, without any need for proper WP:RS to support those claims. In general, you seem to have far, far lower standards of proof for allegations against Siskind than for other claims. Aapjes (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Not for nothin' or nothin', but I still haven't seen any diffs of on wiki edits that would require sanctions. Last I checked, tweets shouldn't be used for evidence for on wiki sanctions unless it's coupled with poor wiki editing. See above where NedFausa got banned because of poor BLS editing AND tweets that showed they were on a mission to disparage the person they're editing here. I don't see that in this case. Nor do I agree there's a COI just because someone has made known on a non wiki website their opinion of someone. IF David Gerard never tweeted would anyone notice through their wiki editing that they would have those opinions? Valeince (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The talk page section linked at the top of this section has me and Grayfell asking for proper cites for these claims of COI, including me asking one claimant directly for diffs. They reply that they don't like noticeboards, but they saw the edits going past. I suggest that this would not pass muster at WP:COIN.

This is an effort by fans of the article subject to vote non-fans off the article - David Gerard (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I started this discussion and I started it for one reason alone - your "14 words" comments. You can try to to frame this as something else if you like, but I have no particular interest in that blog, its supporters, or its enemies. This is about your actions. Mo Billings (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Valeince: I linked it above, but I will quote here: Siskind has literally admitted 14 words in one million was his strategy for SSC. David Gerard called Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi, here, on Wikipedia. How is that not sanctionable? Mo Billings (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mo Billings:The phrase “Neo-Nazi” does not appear in that diff so I think you need to retract that statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I believe uninvolved editors will have no difficulty understanding what David Gerard was saying with his "14 words" reference. He was calling Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi. Feel free to ask David Gerard what he meant if you have trouble seeing that. Mo Billings (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor, I had no edits anywhere related to this subject before stumbling across this discussion. He may certainly have been implying that but he does not actually appear to have said the exact words you said he said... Implying may still be an issue, but you not sticking to reality when describing the actions of another editor is also an issue. Again I suggest you re-write the claims you’re making to more accuracy reflect reality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You should also note that I agree on your larger point, it might swim in a pond, have feathers, quack like a duck look like a duck smell like a duck have 100% duck DNA, shit duck shit, lay duck eggs, but unless multiple WP:RS call it a duck we need to avoid doing so in any wikispace (all assuming that BLP applies to this duck of course). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO, no criteria or cautions laid out at WP:BLPCOI have been met. Neither the "avowed rival bit or what a "reasonable person" would consider a conflict-of-interest, per footnote "E". Editors are allowed to have opinions, even strong ones about a subject. Unless an actual edit on-Wiki can be presented as problematic, this filing is devoid of merit. Zaathras (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• After reading what DG has written about the subject over the last year or so on his blog and twitter, there is no doubt in my mind there's a WP:BLPCOI here. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Where, exactly, is the evidence that he is continuing a dispute on Wikipedia? He can say whatever he wants on his blog and twitter, but for this to apply here, there has to be a direct connection to on-Wikipedia behavior. No more vagueness. Explain it with diffs. If you cannot, or cannot be bothered, don't throw this out as if it were a vote. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCOI says Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. DG has been involved in a significant controversy or dispute with the blogger who writes the Slate Star Codex blog, and thus should not edit material about that person such as the article Slate Star Codex (where he is #1 editor by edits). This is a no-brainer. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's more of a no-evidencer. Supply on-wiki diffs that you consider show this, and how - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It says whether on or off wiki. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I am curious, can you use a source that's looped to a wikipedia editor from a wikipedia article? Sounds like some kind of loop back. Govvy (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no, and it depends on the subject. A subject matter expert who happens to be a wikipedia editor being quoted/interviewed/published in a reliable source is useable. Albeit its frowned upon if they do it themselves. It comes up a lot with academics who want to use themselves as sources, and then get annoyed when we come back "Come and talk to us when you get published." On the wider issue, I am also of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI regarding Siskind here. If you are acting as a source for off-wiki newspapers on a topic, tweeting negatively (and frankly, I would also apply it even if it was positively) about that subject, you shouldnt necessarily be prevented from editing the article but you should certainly not be throwing around accusations of a living person being a neo-nazi. If they are a neo-nazi and reliable sources back that up, plenty of other editors are available to do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This implies I have stated that in the article, which I absolutely have not. However, this is about me expressing an opinion in a tweet, rather than in article space - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I really dont care if you express it by fucking carrier pigeon. That you use off-wiki methods of denigrating people because you are prohibited from doing so on-wiki is not a plus point in your favour. If you want to off-wiki indulge in your freedom to express your opinions, you dont also get to on-wiki pretend that they dont matter. Freedom of expression is not freedom of consequences when on-wiki policies clearly state off-wiki actions will be considered. Why dont you tell everyone how you lost your CU rights after posts on your blog? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with those who've said that David Gerard's extensive sometimes highly negative commentary on the subject means they have a COI. And that they also clearly have a COI about the NYT article and strongly suggest they may have a COI about the subject in general. If this was Donald Trump say, I think we can let it slide because with such highly notable people it can be hard to find editors who don't have a strong opinion about the person. But this is very far from that, likely one reason why the NYT actually used David Gerard as a source. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  P.S. I find the requests for diffs or the claims it must be on-wiki to demonstrate a COI bizarre. Most COIs are off-wiki. I don't need to supply diffs to demonstrate Ivanka Trump has a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. I don't need to supply diffs to demonstrate Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton have a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. No I don't need diffs to demonstrate Barack Obama and George Conway have a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. The only issue is whether we are able to discuss it, or it needs to go to arbcom lest we run foul of WP:Outing which is separate from whether it's a COI. Since no suggested redacting parts of the opening comment, and indeed David Gerard has effectively confirmed they made those comments, I'm assuming that they've previously confirmed a connection to said Twitter account. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  One more comment. I'm not suggesting any action against David Gerard at this time. I'm strongly opposed to blocking people just because they continue to edit articles directly when they have a COI if their edits aren't actually harmful in and of themselves. And to be clear, this includes any edits even ones which aren't simple corrections. If no one can find a reason to revert the edit which isn't some variant of 'COI editor' or find some problem with the edit, then don't revert and don't block. I don't believe doing so is justified by our policy. Paid editors are a little different. However, as with all editors with a COI, I'd strongly urge David Gerard to stop editing the article directly, and they should consider they may be subject to a harsher sanction than they normally would if they continue to do so and their editing is found to be problematic. Demonstrating a problem with David Gerard's edits would require diffs, maybe that part of the source of confusion, I'm not sure. Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• David Gerard, will you agree not to edit about this topic going forward? Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Is it just me or do others find that this particular situation have similarities to this particular case? spryde | talk 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This proceeding feels like nonsense on stilts.

Countervailing strong opinions on an article topic are standard on Wikipedia. It has never been the case at Wikipedia that strong opinions on an article subject preclude editing on the subject. As NorthBySouthBaranof notes, this would presumably preclude fans from editing also.

Such a precedent would launch off-wiki stalking of editors, giving their opponents incentive to comb through their social media in an attempt to impeach them by any means possible.

The claim is that a tweeted off-wiki opinion on the author of the blog that's the article subject is overwhelming evidence of a WP:BLPCOI.

The tweeted opinion is not backed to Wikipedia RS standards of independent third-party coverage, but it's entirely unclear why an off-wiki opinion needs to be - because it is indeed backed by primary sources by the subject, including his own direct admissions as to his views (which I pointed out, though I did not link them), and I'd think that's enough for someone to tweet an opinion that has nothing to do with Wikipedia.

This is being leveraged into a claim that I should not be allowed to edit an article on the subject - even though all my edits on the matter have been in accordance with WP:RS, including defending the article from inclusion of unreliable sources.

(In fact, it is being claimed that explaining my tweet on the talk page when directly asked to explain it is a violation of BLP.)

I don't believe my opinions and knowledge of the article subject constitute a WP:BLPCOI, and I don't believe that the evidence has been offered to claim one.

I think my editing record on the article shows that I can separate opinions from what constitutes good Wikipedia sourcing. Despite repeated requests, no-one has offered evidence that I have not edited in such a way. No drastic actions, considerable talk page discussion.

I'm open to a substantiated case otherwise, but it's repeatedly not being substantiated - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• You know what you wrote and that it wasn't just one tweet or even just limited to Twitter. Anyone can post a collection of quotes of things you've said about the blogger and other living people like the blog's readers, but really won't you just agree to avoid this topic? There are six million other articles as has been pointed out. It would be better if this ended with you taking the feedback on board and making a voluntary commitment. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That isn't addressing what I said, I don't think it 's too much to ask that you do so in making such a request - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not here to play rhetorical games with you. You know what you wrote about this person. You know what BLPCOI says. Either you comply with BLPCOI or you don't. If I have to take the time to gather quotes and post them here, it's coming with a TBAN proposal. I don't need to spend time proving to you what you wrote on your own social media or blog, nor do I need to quote BLPCOI to you again. So you decide whether you want to have the community continue to investigate this matter or if you want to take the feedback you've received here on board (you have a COI) and act accordingly (don't edit the article). Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm involved in a small content dispute with David Gerard, so take that into account. But it seems to me that if you're a source on a story about a subject, you're not independent of that particular story, and should not be involved in editorial decisions involving how that story is used at WP. Since David Gerard has stated that he is a source for a recent NYT story about Slate Star Codex, I think he therefore should not be involved in making decisions about that particular story, such as removing criticism of it from the article, as he did here. And he probably shouldn't be involved in discussion of whether the published criticisms of that story are reliable, as he has been here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That's fair enough not to edit directly re: the NYT article, actually - so sure. Though discussion of it is another matter - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• ArbCom very clearly stated in the 2018 Philip Cross/George Galloway case that "An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest." (spryde also noted the relevance of that case) David Gerard, you are likewise involved in a controversy/dispute with Siskind/Slate Star Codex, so you should refrain from editing about this subject. Please re-read that ArbCom case because it is a closely analagous situation. Fences&Windows 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• On due contemplation, and with my respect for Levivich, he's right. I shan't edit Slate Star Codex going forward - David Gerard (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we discuss your on-wiki comments about Scott Siskind now? Mo Billings (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

    What do you mean? David has agreed to not edit that page going forward. His problematic behaviour is hopefully over, move on now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see an acknowledgement that the "14 words" comment (and his suggestions here about Siskind supporting scientific racism) were violations of WP:BLP and will not be repeated. I note that David Gerard has made no agreement not to edit the talk page so the question of his comments on Siskind is far from a dead issue. Mo Billings (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's important to stress again that David is prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind, not only in the article Slate Star Codex: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person given the potential conflict of interest" (bold added). SarahSV ^(talk) 17:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Per Slimvirgin's comment above, do you agree that you are "prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind"? Mo Billings (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• As I mentioned in my comment below, under topic ban, I do not believe that David's pledge not to edit the article or any article is sufficeint even if expanded as suggested. He is active on the talk page discussion and should not weigh in there to influence selection of sources or other substantive issues. Editors involved in off-wiki controversies should steer clear of articles on that controversy, full stop, and that should apply doubly for administrators, who are supposed to be role models for other editors and held to a higher standard. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is false to say that he is "active" in the talk page discussion. He hasn't edited the talk page in a week. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• David Gerard edited the talk page on 21 February and ceased editing shortly after, although he did make a single edit on 22 February. I assume he is dealing with real life concerns. This discussion should stay open until David Gerard has the chance to reply here. Mo Billings (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• He is by far the most active editor on the talk page, one week absence notwithstanding. Coretheapple (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• He is also by far the top editor of the article itself. Coretheapple (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• (I have a major COI with respect to this dispute due to my employment by LessWrong) Reviewing David Gerard's edits on a closely related page, LessWrong, *I found another, more extreme instance of the same behavior*. In this diff, David takes a section he wrote and inserts a cite to this book review of the book Neoreaction: A Basilisk, marking the edit "add more RSes on neoreaction claim". David Gerard was a major contributor to that book. He then edit-warred over that section and defended specific language quoted from it in the Talk page, without ever disclosing that the "RS" is a review of a book he himself researched and edited. At no point did David Gerard ever disclose a conflict of interest of interest of any kind. A review of his other edits on that page shows lots of other tendentious editing as well. The proposed topic ban is too narrow, as written. Jimrandomh (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• The author of the piece in question, Phil Sandifer, was previously banned from Wikipedia. 135.180.133.204 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC) (Oops, this is me, didn't mean to sign as an IP - Jimrandomh (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC))

• A comment thread from 2017 on David Gerard’s editing of the LessWrong article is highly relevant to this discussion, as well as another more recent thread. — Mark Otaris (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of tools?

• Out of curiousity, is this a matter for ARBCOM to consider perhaps removing David Gerard's tools? Admins have been desysoped for less in the past, and loss of the community's confidence is definitely a problem for any admin. I can't imagine anything less conducive to cultivating trust in the project than a long-term violation of the BLP policy. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 06:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• @BrxBrx: I was wondering the same thing, and tend to agree that arbcom consideration is amply warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• ​​Thirding that Arbcom seems warranted here. I have no bloodlust to get someone who's been admin for seventeen years desysopped, but quite a few things came up late in the conversation (David Gerard's potentially tendentious editing on other topics that are just outside of "Scott Siskind broadly construed", potential COI issues elsewhere) that may require further consideration in that sphere. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to agree with this comment. jp×g 06:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• An Arb case is unneeded IMO. DG already recognised he'd overstepped the mark. As per XOR, Loki etc is arguably wasn't an especially blatant violation. Even admins are allowed to make the occasional mistake. Suggest this can be closed, the Scott Alexander situation is resolved. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  As someone who's had problems with David Gerard's admin actions several times before (eg this, which was quite egregious tbh), I'm finding it difficult to see how the below rises to a desysop. (however, looking now while trying to find the Susie Boniface discussion, the history of this debate seems problematic, see BLPN, talk, AN; Gerard pushing for inclusion over near-unanimous objections in mid-2020). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

With regards to @ProcrastinatingReader's comments, any arbcom case would have a much broader scope than this single incident. I agree that the single incident ending in a tban has been resolved; the reason there's speculation about an arbcom case is the discussion over whether it's isolated or not, or if David Gerard has a longstanding pattern of conduct inconsistent with the bit (or even just needing much closer scrutiny). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that David Gerard be subjected to banning or blocking. What is being suggested is that his special privileges, the tools that give him power over other users, be revoked. This is totally reasonable from the Siskind issues, which dragged on as long as it did here largely because David withdrew and refused to communicate after a certain point. That wasn't just one slip, but rather took place over months and months, and was not isolated. He was happy to exert his COI in a range of articles. As I look at WP:ADMIN, I observe that his conduct flies in the face of what we supposedly expect from administrators in a number of ways, including communication. As I noted above, after a certain point in this discussion, he just walked away, leaving people to guess and speculate as if he was some kind of mystic oracle. The fact that he is a longtime user makes his behavior worse, not more excusable. I'm taking the liberty of adding a header to break out this discussion separately. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts are as follows: The long term nature of policy violation is definitely not appropriate conduct for someone who holds an elevated position of trust within the project. For the sake of continued confidence in the project, the public should be able to believe that those who hold these tools are not going to violate core policies that could have legal ramifications like the BLP policy. The fact that this has occurred since october of last year, and ended in an apparent failure to communicate, leaving us guessing (along with a refusal to admit that the edits were indeed in contravention of the BLP policy, instead demanding "diffs" for their conduct on twitter/NYT has left me with very little confidence in this user's continued suitability as an admin. It pains me to have to see this go down, but fundamentally, the public expects that articles written about living persons are not going to become a battleground for alledged smearing, let alone by a contributor in an elevated position of trust. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 00:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I also find myself noting that the case @ProcrastinatingReader brought up resulted in multiple people (including @Levivich) suggesting an arbcom case. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Propose topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It appears that the consensus of the community is that David Gerard should not write anything anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind. It also appears that David Gerard does not agree and will not stop voluntarily. I propose a community-imposed topic ban on the topic of Scott Siskind, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe you missed it but he agreed to stop voluntarily in his comment above at 16:49, 21 February 2021? Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Diff:[55] David Gerard only agreed to stop editing that one page. I would be a lot more confidant if David Gerard would respond to the question "Per Slimvirgin's comment above, do you agree that you are 'prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind'?" asked by Mo Billings on 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC), Diff:[56] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  

  It seems overly hasty to go down the "topic ban, broadly construed" path. First, in ractice, what articles would not actually be covered by the voluntary stop he already agreed to? Second, I'd suggest that assuming good faith in this case means not leaping to the conclusion that he won't immediately try to worm through a loophole. Third, WP:BLP cuts both ways: if David Gerard is forbidden from editing a topic because he is an external participant, then by the same token, he might well be discussed at Talk:Slate Star Codex as a figure in that kerfuffle, in which case he ought to be able to make non-self-serving statements there, just as we allow anyone to do on the Talk page of the article about them. For example, if the article Slate Star Codex mentioned him and made some biographical statement that became outdated, he ought to be able to suggest an update and provide an appropriate source. I'm concerned that "broadly construed" would impede that. (Non-admin comment; found my way here from RSN.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  I can see significant value to a tban in the sense of actual enforcement; in terms of people actually staying away from aspects of the project they've sworn they'll quit, if wishes were horses we'd all own stables. The talk page considerations are reasonable, and I think 'broadly constructed' here can be interpreted or explicitly stated to permit the self-referential talk page editing traditionally offered to COI subjects unless he becomes tendentious on it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose even article subjects can generally edit the talk page. Now that DG has agreed not to edit Slate Star Codex directly, I can't support this without some diff of inappropriate behavior. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as an enforcement method, not a punishment -- to use the traditional line, "preventative not punitive", or the actual reason we impose these at all. David Gerard's choice to step away is laudable, but as a heavy contributor to the topic it's completely understandable that detachment might be neither immediate nor easy; the project has a long, long history of people having difficulty staying away from topics that trouble them. David Gerard is a valuable contributor to other areas of the project, and I think a tban is the soft option here -- it ensures he can continue editing in those areas without being dogged by the desire to return to an issue where he has COI problems, possibly raising more serious sanctions against him. I reiterate my point earlier about trial-permitting talk page access if he desires it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment a few weeks later, now that support !votes aren't being badgered: as David Gerard would say, read this as the strongest version of its statements. (And I'm not sure I'd mind an Arbcom case.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, for now. Given the editor's agreement to step away, this seems premature, and maybe a bit punitive (or at least overly harsh, even if meant to preempt further disruption). Since they've agreed not to repeat their behaviour, and have agreed to what essentially amounts to a voluntary and self-imposed topic ban (of sorts), the issue seems to be dealt with. I'd support a formal (and logged) final warning with the agreement that any further disruption will be met with this particular sanction, which can be imposed by any administrator as a normal admin action, without community consensus. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose If we can not trust the word of one that's been given the admin bit then we have already lost. Also, any formal warning is just punitive at this point as I think David realizes this thread and his promise will be diff'ed should he stray from his self-imposed topic ban. Slywriter (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, the amount of trust and confidence wrapped up in adminship has varied significantly throughout the project's history. When DG got the bit, Jimbo had only recently stopped hand-appointing admins. That's not a statement that either DG or other 2004-cohort admins are untrustworthy, but seventeen years is a long time and the project is unrecognizable to how it was, including in terms of admin expectations. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: I didn't comment above but I'm doubtful that David Gerard even has a COI in the first place. Obviously he strongly dislikes Scott Siskind, but that's not the same as a COI, otherwise there are very few people who could edit Osama bin Laden, Richard Spencer, or David Icke. The only thing that even seems a little like he has a COI is that he was a source for an article on Siskind. But that still doesn't quite sound to me like a controversy or dispute with Siskind, nor does it make him Siskind's rival, which are the actual standards at WP:BLPCOI. I think any situation which would make him covered by WP:BLPCOI would have to be two-sided: that is to say, either Siskind would have to come out and say he doesn't like Gerard either ("dispute"/"rival"), or else we would have to have some third-party source cover Gerard's grudge against Scott ("controversy"). It's near the line and so I think Gerard voluntarily declining to edit articles about Siskind is a good idea, but I don't think he's required to do so. Loki (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'd support this sanction, except DG has seemed to accept Levivich's BLPCOI argument. I'll say a bit more in the hopes of encouraging DG not to make any more Scott Alexander related edits at all. (He might already intend that, but strictly he only seems to have committed not to edit the Star Codex mainspace page.) I know DG means well and thinks he's helping the anti racist cause. But it was rather disconcerting to see someone try to associate a progressive Jew who lost relatives in the holocaust with neo nazi propaganda like 14 words. Various studies have consistently found that on average the Star Codex audience leans well to the left. Scott Alexander is well respected by the tech elite across the planet. Many of the founders and senior execs from the large platforms read his blog. Even UK Christians, while rejecting his atheist worldview, see SA as a person of exceptional compassion, courage and honesty. If DG thinks he can square up to someone like Scott Alexander that's up to him. But the place to push his heterodox views would be his own social media or via his mates in legacy newspapers like NYT & FT. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No call for this as user has voluntarily agreed to step away. Revisit iff (not a typo) an issue arises in the future. ValarianB (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, for now My main worry is that the editor will keep making veiled or explicit personal attacks on the talk pages, like accusing Scott Alexander of racism and insinuating that he's a Nazi. Or insinuating that I'm canvassing people on one side of the issue on Twitter, without providing any evidence. An actual topic ban also prevents the editor from editing the talk pages, unlike the choice of the editor to not edit the article itself. However, perhaps abstaining from editing the page will stop this kind of behavior. If so, a topic ban is unnecessary. Aapjes (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as overkill. Loki makes a reasonable point above that a voluntary recusal wouldn't have been obligatory, even if it is preferred. (Non-admin comment; found my way here from RSN.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • To elaborate: disliking the subject of an article isn't a conflict of interest, and if a newspaper interviewing someone about a topic is enough to create a COI, then we'd be painting with a very broad brush, catching a lot of benign examples in addition to genuinely problematic ones. For instance, I'm a physicist, and as such I'm occasionally approached for comment by science magazines who want an outside expert's opinion about a story. Does that give me a Conflict of Interest about the subject of that story? It's not my research, I don't have a financial or reputational stake in it — I just have the background knowledge to be able to talk about it. That's the same background knowledge which I would bring to a Wikipedia article. Would my doing so be illegitimate? XOR'easter (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • If you can remain neutral, disliking a BLP subject is not an issue. That is not that case here. David Gerard called a BLP subject a Neo-Nazi. Mo Billings (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Sometimes, the neutral description of a living person is "neo-Nazi" (one example has already been mentioned in this thread). Neutral does not mean kind. So, in principle, I can't honestly say that describing someone as a neo-Nazi, or implying they are fascist-sympathetic more generally, ought itself to be a disqualification. Looking at the edit where the implication was made, I'd say that it improperly cites a claim in a self-published source about a third party, which is a bad thing to do on a BLP talk page. Consequently, yes, stepping back was a good move, but I'm not seeing a case for a formal ban. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I think, when an editor tries to remove reliably sourced content from an article criticizing and article they themselves contributed to (e.g. removing reference that the Reason article says The New York Times wrote a "hit piece"), that clearly violates the WP:COI guidelines. SkylabField (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There's as yet no consensus over at RSN whether the Reason piece is suitable, with both WP:RSOPINION and WP:UNDUE concerns having been raised. And David Gerard didn't write the New York Times story that the Reason piece took issue with; he was interviewed for it, and the end result is whatever made it through the NYT editorial process. If he had, for example, removed a negative review of a book that he himself wrote, that would be qualitatively different. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Update to that: the RSN discussion fizzled out and was archived without a formal close. XOR'easter (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as not necessary to prevent disruption in light of the voluntary commitment. Voluntary solutions > involuntary solutions. When an editor makes a voluntary commitment, we shouldn't assume that it'll be violated (in letter or spirit); that would be the opposite of WP:AGF. And, we don't TBAN people just for having a COI. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: actually, I've seen a few TBANs for BLP COIs (remember the Kamala Harris "whitewashing", for example?). Not necessarily saying current me likes or doesn't like the practice, but rather that it does happen. As for this particular case, I've only skimmed but, as usual, I agree voluntary solutions are better than involuntary sanctions, and so would oppose this myself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Levivich, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles (2018), which examined an editor making negative edits to BLPs (and to biographical material in other articles) and being in a dispute on Twitter with one of the subjects. In particular, see Principles 4.1.10 and 4.1.11. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Change to Support. Everybody go read Wug's comment below. What particularly swayed me is that it's been almost two weeks without answers to the simplest questions, even when the answers were spoon-fed. No editor, admin or otherwise, is above addressing the community's concerns about their editing, especially about BLPs. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support David Gerard has stated I shan't edit Slate Star Codex going forward. He has not addressed his "14 words" comment, made on the page page of Slate Star Codex, which clearly implied that Scott Siskind is a Neo-Nazi. He has not agreed to stop commenting on Siskind. SlimVirgin has stated David is prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind, not only in the article Slate Star Codex per WP:BLPCOI. I asked David Gerard to comment on his understanding of that statement, but he has not. I am concerned that without some formal topic ban, we will be here again discussing the same issue in a few weeks or months. Mo Billings (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: For those claiming that "David Gerard agreed to stop:, in this diff:[57] David Gerard only agreed to stop editing that one page. I would be a lot more confidant if David Gerard would respond to the question "Per Slimvirgin's comment above, do you agree that you are 'prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind? asked by Mo Billings on 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[58] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Guy. - Scarpy (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose He recused himself, and this ends the matter. Pursuing this further serves no purpose other than sating the blood thirst of adamant fans, which I think on principle we shouldn't do. Mvolz (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban applicable to mainspace and talk pages in the subject area, and a review of the article by uninvolved editors for POV one way or the other. The user is an administrator and should have known better, and should be held to a higher standard, and subject to more stringent steps, than otherwise might occur. It's amazing that this ANI thread is necessary in the first place. This kind of COI editing brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Coretheapple (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC) I just wanted to add that I made this comment on the basis of the comments above, and was not aware that page logs indicate that, by number of edits, David Gerard is far and away the top editor of both the article itself and the talk page. He made 26% of article edits[59] and 39% of talk page edits [60], by far the most active of any editor. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - sanctions are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. Merely having a COI has never been grounds for preventing someone from engaging in talk page discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Note: David Gerard has not edited at all since the 22nd of February. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm alive and well! I've just been trying a week off. It's been nice - David Gerard (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Tentative Strong support I'm afraid that once an editor has connected their off-wiki views publicly in such a prominent fashion in this conversation no less, it becomes very difficult to control the trust and confidence of the community that they will be acting fully within the provisions of the COI policy, a la wp:NONAZIS (though I do acknowledge that it's an essay without consensus support). I do note however that the editor in question has recused themselves, and hence I've moderated my support to being tentative only, and would not oppose no tban at all, as tbans are meant to be protective of the project, as opposed to sanctions against an editor. Per Wugapode's analysis, the fact that this has been going on for over a year (and which I was unaware of), apparently in concert with the NYT's coverage of the subject leads me to believe this has been an extremely egregious, long-term violation of BLPCOI. At this point, I'm actually leaning towards opening an arbcom case, if Wugapodes thinks it is appropriate. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 05:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: due to voluntary commitment. Sanctions need to be preventative, not punitive. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - (I have a major COI with respect to this dispute due to my employment by LessWrong, so skip this bullet if you'd rather not be influenced by my opinion here.) David Gerard's commitment not to edit the [Slate_Star_Codex] article is substantially narrower than the proposed topic-ban would be, which is in turn narrower than the topic-ban I (in my COI'ed opinion) think would be appropriate. If you follow links from the Slate_Star_Codex article under discussion to the causes and organizations listed as associated - futurism, LessWrong, Effective_Altruism, and AI_safety - you will find that David Gerard has edited all of them. While those edits have been within the rules as far as I know, they've all been in the direction of making those pages more negative, and off-wiki evidence shows he has a broad grudge. (Specifically, his comments in Reddit's SneerClub, his tweets, and his edits on the corresponding pages on RationalWiki. You don't need to dig; just find his account on one of these platforms, and about half of his total comments will be criticism of SlateStarCodex, LessWrong, or something affiliated with one of these.) Jimrandomh (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Jimrandomh: I think you're raising a valid point. The topic ban proposal is indeed too narrow, and should be expanded. David should not edit on those subjects and of course neither should you, if you do. Topic bans should be applied to all editors with any real life connection to the subject matter of those articles, with the exception of the exemptions allowed by BLP for subjects of articles. For the benefit of those of us unfamiliar with the subject , can you please suggest how such a topic ban should be defined? Coretheapple (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Coretheapple: I agree that my COI applies to all of the pages named as well as others, and will not edit them (and have not edited them since before the COI existed). I would suggest defining the scope of a topic-ban by reference to David Gerard's comment on this reddit.com/r/SneerClub post, which defines the scope of his grudge in his own words: "the many tendrils that branched from LessWrong.com, the site for the wisdom of Eliezer Yudkowsky ... This includes SSC and themotte, and increasingly the IDW as they take up LW/SSC nonsense. Being on-topic basically means tracing back to LessWrong via some path." I would interpret this as meaning he should not edit the pages for LessWrong, Slate_Star_Codex, Center_for_Applied_Rationality (the parent organization of LessWrong), Machine_Intelligence_Research_Institute (split from the same parent organization as CFAR), employees of any of these, and topics/organizations that an RS defines to be strongly associated with these, such as Effective_Altruism and AI_safety. (struck to avoid risk of undue weight on COI-ed opinion, see below) Jimrandomh (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jimrandomh: OK. I just thought there might be a more succinct way of describing the topic ban. I see that David is with us and chooses not to respond further on this. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: How about "Pages linked from the templates at the bottom of the LessWrong article as of 2021/03/02"? That's pretty succinct, and I think matches his "tendrils that branched from LessWrong.com" description pretty well (and does include Slate_Star_Codex). (struck to avoid risk of undue weight on COI-ed opinion, see below) Jimrandomh (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• While David's behavior has been unprofessional, this is at least as much of a COI as he had; it is a little disconcerting for an employee of an organization to opine on proposals (however justified) for people to be banned from editing articles about the organization, and I would recommend @Jimrandomh: strike his comment. jp×g 21:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• @JPxG: I agree that I have a major COI here. My read of WP:PSCOI seems to imply that participating in noticeboard discussions with a COI is okay, provided it's disclosed up front, whereas editing articles directly would not be. In particular WP:PSCOI links to the admin noticeboard in the "steps for engagement" section. That said, I'm not a Wikipedia-rules expert, and I wouldn't want undue weight placed on my phrasing, so I've struck both of the comments I wrote which had specific proposals (while leaving the top-level comment with observations and the original COI disclosure, but no proposals, as-is.) Jimrandomh (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jimrandomh: You have an admitted COI, which you state upfront, and were providing information which of course people are free to contest. I can understand why you struck out your comment, but it was useful and I don't think obscuring its visibility was necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• From the looks of it, the /r/SneerClub subreddit is devoted to mocking/joshing LessWrong, the "Intellectual Dark Web" and topics in between. If you look up someone's comments there, of course most of their total comments will be criticism of SlateStarCodex, LessWrong, or something affiliated with one of these. That's what the subreddit is for. If you look up what a person posts to /r/philately, you'll find them talking about stamps. This seems a weirdly self-affirming way to conclude that a person has a "grudge" — and, in turn, a grudge would not be the same thing as a COI. XOR'easter (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  Participation in the subreddit was presumably a choice. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  Sure. But it's only one of several subreddits which a quick perusal shows he actively participates in, just like his Twitter feed is full of various topics and he's edited a variety of topics over at RationalWiki. I'm hardly seeing the kind of unhealthy obsession that was being implied above, where his description of a subreddit's general and vaguely-delimited area of interest was somehow transmuted into the scope of his grudge. For me, this is all coming uncomfortably close to banning an editor from a half-dozen articles because that editor was knowledgable enough that the New York Times sought them out for comment. There's a leap being made from "having expressed opinions" to "being involved in a controversy" and thus to "having a COI" which I'm finding increasingly difficult to follow, and even if I go that far, the sanction proposed seems way out of proportion. XOR'easter (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. On Twitter, he said: i sent Metz SO MUCH material for that NYT SlateStarCodex article, i can see the ghosts of what i sent". This is the very article that he was arguing that criticism of should be removed. Disliking a guy is one thing (I have certainly said off-wiki that I think Smedley Butler was cool and Adolf Hitler was cringe); he was not simply calling Scott a bozo for years on some forum. He was doing that, and then editing tendentiously about a news story he was a source for (and, if David is to be believed, ghostwrote part of). Simply pinky-swearing to not edit one specific article about the guy's blog does not seem like an adequate solution to the problem. jp×g 21:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • How is being one of many sources for a story the same as ghostwriting it? Ghostwriting means writing for hire and having your words appear under the client's name, not sending background material to a newspaper and watching it die. The New York Times story didn't mention David Gerard. Nor did the Reason item. Reason was complaining about the work of Cade Metz (and the NYT editorial system), not the writing of David Gerard, which they had not seen. (From the rest of the tweet linked above, we can plausibly conclude that a David Gerard story would have come out differently.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I guess it depends on what "see the ghosts" means. On one hand, the complaint about the article was that David's material was "run through the NYT mealymouthed centrist filter", which I took to mean that he had significant input (i.e. the stuff he wrote is still there, but "run through a filter"). On the other hand, in a post in an anti-SSC group(?), he says "it isn't the article we wanted, and I suspect Cade wanted it stronger too. But it's good enough" – so I think it might be the case that the New York Times edited the story to be substantially less negative than they had intended when submitting material for it. This introduces enough ambiguity that I'll strike that part of my comment rather than get bogged down in discussion of it. jp×g 23:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I think the meaning of that tweet is plain. David Gerard, wearing his "source" hat, worked with the writer of the Times article. His collaboration was amply reflected in the article. Then he puts on his "Wikipedia editor" hat and has a major voice in determining how that Times article will be treated here. Whew. Here we are arguing how severe a COI that is. I think it's off the charts. Coretheapple (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Being a source for an article isn't a collaboration. Collaborators get bylines, or at least a note about "so-and-so contributed reporting". XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
          • He worked with the writer and his efforts bore fruit. He admitted it. He bragged about it. Are we really going to split hairs about whether it was or wasn't a collaboration because he didn't get a byline? Coretheapple (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

            his efforts bore fruit – I mean, that's really boring. It's kind of like "ugly enough to stop a clock". EEng 22:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

            • It's not splitting hairs; it's recognizing how journalism works. When you're a source, you're not a coauthor. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
              • If anything, it's a deeper involvement than a collaborator because the source shapes the article, and that same source is shaping Wikipedia. So maybe it isn't hair splitting. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                • I've been interviewed, on background and by name, and to say that I "shaped" the articles that eventually happened would be to misrepresent the process completely. Reporters and their editors do the shaping. We sources don't control what they choose to emphasize or to downplay. In this case, we already have quotes from David Gerard in this thread that indicate the New York Times story is not the story he would have written. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                  • David Gerard said on Twitter "it isn't the article we wanted, and I suspect Cade wanted it stronger too. But it's good enough." "We wanted." Yes, a collaboration. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                    • "We" sounds like it's referring to the /r/SneerClub community, who had been expecting the article to come out eventually. 20:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                      • Let's see if I can sum up what happened. 1. David is part of a community of people who wanted a more negative article. 2. David worked closely (I'll avoid the word "collaborated") with the reporter to make it more negative, and 3) he was dissatisfied with the outcome, felt it should have been more negative, and "suspects" that the reporter feels the same way. While making these statements he was editing Wikipedia in the subject area, including but not limited to the aspects of the article pertaining to the Times piece for which he provided material intended to make the Times article negative. I think that sums things up. Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                        • I don't know whether "worked closely" is accurate (it sounds synonymous with "collaborate" anyway); would an interview and/or providing information over a few email exchanges be "working closely"? And what exactly is the problem with having sufficient interest in a topic area that one is both willing to edit Wikipedia and approached by a newspaper as a source? It's true that David said that a source (Reason) that was critical of the NYT story shouldn't be included, but at the end of the day, the work Reason complained about was that of Metz and the NYT, and a whole RSN discussion petered out without a consensus to include the Reason item after all, with WP:UNDUE and WP:RSOPINION concerns having been raised. I've been growing more puzzled about the reactions to this every time I revisit it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                          • • "....would an interview and/or providing information over a few email exchanges be 'working closely'?" Call it what you will, call it "working far away," but when you then put on a "Wikipedia editor" hat you have a COI that is a big as the rising sun,. Coretheapple (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Every admin gets one free defamation scandal Support Seriously? Seriously, everyone, what the fuck is wrong with us? We have secured what appears to be a single concession: no direct edits to the article. Reading through this discussion it seems that David has called the subject a neo-nazi, has significantly contributed to a NYT article described by other sources as a "hit piece", disingenuously used Wikipedia to push his POV despite a COI obvious to anyone with eyes, and we as a community are incapable of doing anything other than a warning? What the fuck is wrong with us? We engage in a massive work stoppage when the WMF steps in because we want to self govern, but when faced with the simplest case of harassment we balk. We are proving that the community is weak willed. We play self governance when it is fun, but when it is time to put on our grown-up pants and make the obviously correct decision we look for a way to pass the responsibility to someone else (then we kvetch about power being taken from the community, lol).
  If anyone, literally any editor who is not an administrator had done this they would have been indeffed on sight. If an editor clearly in the wrong disappeared for a week, would we call that evidence of change or would we call it laying low hoping that it blows over and impose a sanction regardless? When was the last time any of you put this much effort into hand-holding a new editor through WP:BLP? Not only is that a fundamental policy we expect admins to have glanced at once in their life, it is a policy with legal implications. We made a whole fucking speedy deletion criterion once in order to respond to an admin making bad redirects. Redirects! We are shaping up to be more strict with fucking REDIRECTS than with plain-as-day harassment.
  To everyone citing WP:PREVENTATIVE, you know what prevents BLP violations? Placing strict and explicit limits on the person and empowering admins to act quickly should the behavior occur again. You know what doesn't prevent BLP violations? Letting them continue their crusade on the talk page and giving them a voluntary TBAN that they can revoke whenever they feel like it. I personally have closed discussions on this very noticeboard where the community imposed a TBAN after the editor said they would stop voluntarily; if memory serves me right, some names here were fine with it then, but of course, it was someone without a get-out-of-jail-free card the sysop bit. How things change when the old boys club a long term sysop is facing consequences. Sorry our hands are tied ;)
  Are we really satisfied that behavioral problems have been resolved? He hasn't answered the simplest question despite editors spoon-feeding him the answer: "do you agree that you are 'prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind'?". We require the lowly rabble non-sysops to recite an entire act of contrition and grovel at our feet before we consider lifting sanctions for something like this, and David can't (or won't) answer a simple question about a basic policy that everyone and their brother has told him the answer to? Instead, he said he won't edit a single page and then ditched us. I'm supposed to see that and think "yeah, this definitely won't be a problem again in a month".
  On top of that, David seems to have spent the last year (curiously, the NYT controversy also started a year ago...weird coincidence I guess) editing tendentiously in order to push their POV. For personal context, last year I was learning edit filters to help with the workload caused by people trying to use the wiki to doxx the subject, and I'm supposed to calmly learn that another admin was not only a key figure in that saga, but has been using the Wiki to further that agenda, and that we plan to do nothing? When someone using the wiki to harrass a subject gets an oversight block, where are the editors coming out of the woodwork to say "ah but they promised not to harass the subject directly in the article so you should unblock". Absolute bullshit. How many editors has David scared away? How many edit filters will we need to make the next time David has a personal grudge against an article subject? This is embarrassing. Look at yourselves. If this closes as anything other than imposing a topic ban, I will throw a fit. And nothing will happen to me, because I'm an admin. Am I getting this thread right? I can't deal with this flaming pile of crap right now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 10:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Also to be completely above board here, I was made aware of David Gerard's conduct at Talk:Slate Star Codex a couple of months ago when my partner, a new Wikipedia editor (they have not commented in this thread, and I am not tagging them out of respect for their privacy) and reader of the blog, raised concerns with me over dinner about how an (then unnamed) admin was acting on the talk page. Knowing Wikipedia drama (anti-)patterns, I asked "when did they become an admin", and when my partner told me I said "yeah, a lot of old school admins are problematic but get away with a lot of stuff, if it gets really bad report it to AN, but unless they start misusing admin tools, nothing is going to happen" before sighing and taking a bite of my spaghetti. That was the end of it for me. Despite my partner's concerns, I didn't look into it because I wanted to avoid any potential COI or fruit from a poisonous tree. Most of all, the idea of starting an on-wiki dispute based on my personal life felt gross. I just wanted to enjoy my dinner. I don't really care about the subject and if it was bad, it would get brought up by someone else. Imagine my surprise that we're here now (I am not surprised). — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I have to admit I do find the logical disconnect between this case and something like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_of_User:Geo_Swan somewhat baffling. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reading through this discussion it seems that David has called the subject a neo-nazi [according to the most hyperbolic reading possible of one or two comments] has significantly contributed to a NYT article [where "contributed" means "was interviewed on background for"] described by other sources as a "hit piece" [those other sources being polemical themselves and not found reliable when debated at RSN] disingenuously used Wikipedia to push his POV despite a COI obvious to anyone with eyes [multiple editors in this thread have not found it obvious]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah okay, sorry, let me rephrase strongly implied a couple times that the subject---who he knows personally and dislikes (David's own characterization!)---is advocating neo-nazi views based on a twitter post and then went to the NYT to get them to publish that perspective so that he can insert it into the article without disclosing that COI to us, all while ignoring the concerns of editors who raised a different COI concern with him in August Thanks, that puts all my BLP concerns to bed. You did it, you convinced me this is benign and unlikely to be a problem in the future /s — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The edit where David Gerard said that Scott Siskind advocated scientific racism and encourag[ed] reactionaries [61] came after the NYT story, not before. The discussion from last August seems to have been motivated by the same concerns as this one; it's part 1, to which this is the sequel, rather than a different COI concern per se. Like many Talk page spats, it seems to have been more heat than light and fizzled with no formal action taken. (This line from Grayfell there seems apt: Having first-hand knowledge of a person or topic is not a conflict of interest by most reasonable definitions, and neither is having a strong opinion.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • discussion from last August seems to have been motivated by the same concerns as this one So you admit this is a long running problem that has not resolved and in fact gotten worse? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Brush with (potential) impropriety

-EEng

• No, I'm saying that the same tenuous assertions were made then that are being made now. Something that was at worst a brush with impropriety — perhaps a reason to make suggestions on a Talk page rather than editing directly, but not a reason to be expelled from Talk pages — continues to be at worst a brush with impropriety. XOR'easter (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's a brush with impropriety the first time that it's brought to your attention. When you continue to "brush" against impropriety after that we just call it impropriety; and on Wikipedia we tend to call it Wikipedia:Tendentious editing​ and we block people for it. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)​

• • What do you mean, "will throw a fit"? :-D Anyway, you're 100% right, and I've changed my !vote above. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd be a lot more convinced of this if we had diffs which showed exactly how the POV was being pushed. The Geo Swan matter seems entirely different to me. There was a clear "bad action" in that case. I've reviewed some of the diffs from the topic and while I easily could have missed something (I didn't look at every diff, and I have no familiarity with the topic), I don't see any edits that stand out as what I would consider to be "bad actions," unless it's "being quoted in a secondary source about a controversial topic." SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Having now looked over the Geo Swan business, this does seem different. An off-wiki conflict is not the same as an off-wiki expression of dislike. XOR'easter (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • (ec) Editors at the article brought up COI and POV concerns regarding David on the talk page 6 months ago. Multiple editors in the above discussion bring up Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. You know when this was first brought up to David? October Am I supposed to understand this is a good faith misunderstanding or a momentary lapse of judgement and not a blatant violation of norms editors told him about months ago? Aside from the big smoking gun that brought us all here, what evidence do we have that the gun was manufactured, acquired, and brought to the scene by the person we caught red handed? — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • My reading of that discussion is that most editors generally thought continued editing wasn't a problem. You're going to sanction someone based on that conclusion? Please. SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Yes, because the problem only escalated. He became more deceptive. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
            • How, exactly? SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Scroll up. You'll see such wonderful gems as:

  • • • • • • • • David Gerard's extensive sometimes highly negative commentary on the subject means they have a COI. And that they also clearly have a COI about the NYT article and strongly suggest they may have a COI about the subject in general. If this was Donald Trump say, I think we can let it slide because with such highly notable people it can be hard to find editors who don't have a strong opinion about the person. But this is very far from that, likely one reason why the NYT actually used David Gerard as a source. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                • David, it seems clear that you have a COI, per WP:COI and WP:BLPCOI. You've acted as a source for a newspaper about this person, and tweeted about him. Now you're writing about him on WP, using that newspaper article as a source and removing criticism of it. SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                • It's important to stress again that David is prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind, not only in the article Slate Star Codex: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual ... [sic] should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person given the potential conflict of interest" (bold added). SarahSV (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                • If you're talking to the New York Times as a source on a subject, you should probably find something else to edit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                • I am of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                • DG has been "involved in a significant controversy or dispute with" the blogger who writes the Slate Star Codex blog, and thus should not edit "material about that person" such as the article Slate Star Codex (where he is #1 editor by edits). This is a no-brainer. Levivich harass/hound 05:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Usually, when things improve, we don't get commentary like that at ANI. Usually, when things improve, we don't have people pointing out the same issues raised 6 months ago. Let's say I agree with you; 6 months ago editors were concerned about a COI but concluded that (at the moment) editing the article was not a serious problem, given the above discussion (that you seem to have somehow immediately forgotten exists) how is this not worse? — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  You said that he became "more" deceptive, but your diffs are of the opinions of other community members. I agree that we're at the right result, which is that they shouldn't be editing that page anymore, but I still don't see any sanctionable conduct. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not completely convinced of the distinction between interest and conflict of interest here, especially without clear diffs apart from being the "most active editor on the talk page." The user has said they won't touch the page anymore, which should be the end of the issue. SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per Wugapodes' comment. If this exact same situation happened with an account with a good hundred edits, everyone would support a TBAN (but only if an admin didn’t indef them first). I’m surprised that a lot of the !votes are Opposes and the justification is "he promised to stop so we should listen". I’m sorry, but David has the rights to literally blow up the website. The fact that anyone thought to make an ANI thread about an admin and everyone is saying "oh but he prrrromisssed" is a giant red flag. David can "promise" to not delete the main page and then delete it the next day anyways. I can "promise" to follow a 1RR and revert twice the next day anyways. To me, promises don’t mean anything unless I know I can trust you. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. As a fellow member of "the old boys club" I think there's a good deal of truth in Wugapodes' tirade. We do cut long-term users a lot of slack, perhaps more than we should. There's so obviously a COI problem here it shouldn't have required this much discussion. Black Kite's point on the disconnect between the handling of this situation, and that of Geo Swan, is apposite. Regarding voluntary restrictions, I don't like them in these cases. It concedes the issue to the user's judgment, even while acknowledging that said user's judgment is flawed. If we agree with the latter, then we shouldn't endorse the former. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Wugapodes writes quite emotionally but also quite persuasively. David Gerard does excellent work in many areas and that should continue. But no editor, especially not an administrator, should edit about a living person that they have a prolonged, active public grudge against. And if that behavior continues for months, a topic ban is the logical and fair result. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Wugapodes' argument is spot on. If anyone but a long-term sysop had edited with such a clear COI they would have been blocked by now. We need to meet the moment and send a clear signal that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 20:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Wugapodes incredibly potent and poignant rant. The stuff of legends, truly. Much respect. El_C 22:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I want to expand a bit by adding that, for myself, I try to avoid editing BLPs whom I dislike in any way that would negatively impact them, at least as much as is humanly possible — just for my own personal COI-like peace of mind and conscience. Excepting perhaps BLPs who are, say, heads of state, but even then I try to keep it in check; though, in fairness, there aren't that many heads of state that I do like, but I digress. The point is that contemptible BLP or not, is totally irrelevant to standing firmly against having them become potential victims. El_C 22:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. DG appears to have a personal conflict with the subject of the article. For example, the subject has called DG an "unofficial president of my enemies' club" [62]. Being the most active editor of the article, removing sources critical of NYT publication to which he claims to have contributed so much that he can see the "ghosts" of his writing indicates lack of judgement on DG's part. I support extending the ban to all topics related to Less Wrong as per discussion above. Eliokim (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • So, now the subject of an article gets to declare in a self-published source who their "enemies" are, and those enemies are forbidden from having any involvement whatsoever in that article or any article that happens to be listed in its sidebar or footer? I've been thinking for weeks that I should take a break from this place, but if that's the kind of precedent we are willing to set, my wiki-break is going to be a long one. XOR'easter (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @LokiTheLiar: In your oppose rationale above (which XOReaster cited in their original rationale) you said I think any situation which would make him covered by WP:BLPCOI would have to be two-sided: that is to say, either Siskind would have to come out and say he doesn't like Gerard either ("dispute"/"rival") Does the subject's statement from 17 days ago (from before your !vote but only just mentioned by Eliokim above) calling David Gerard the sort of unofficial president of my enemies' club and saying it seems more like the kind of thing that might happen if someone had it out for you make this seem like a two-sided "dispute"/"rival"? — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    • It does make it seem more like a dispute in the conventional sense, but it doesn't really make it seem more like the sort of significant controversy or dispute that WP:BLPCOI is talking about, in context. I was thinking out loud there, and outlined some obvious minimum qualities based on WP:BLPCOI, but I think any reasonable definition of a conflict of interest needs to go further than just "you can't have a COI that nobody else knows about".

  A conflict of interest is what it sounds like: it's when your personal best interest is in conflict with the goals of Wikipedia. So, stuff like a politician editing the article of a rival politician, parties to a court case editing each others' articles, editing the article of a close relative, directors editing the articles of movie critics, and so on; the stuff that is covered by WP:COI but applied specifically to BLP. I don't think that what's going on here qualifies because I can't see any way that Gerard's strong negative opinion of Siskind is actually furthering any personal interest of his. Having a strong personal opinion about a notable person is a very good reason to step back from their article, and obviously it's a violation of WP:NPOV to insert negative information into any article because you have a negative personal opinion of the subject, but it's not a conflict of interest.

  I also share XOReaster's concern that omitting the "significant" from significant controversy or dispute opens the door to notable people being able to effectively topic ban their critics from editing their Wikipedia article simply by publicly noting that they are critics. That's not, I think, what's intended by being involved in a significant controversy or dispute. WP:BLPCOI mentions as establishing context that articles concerning living persons may include material [...] about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. This seems to me like it's only these sorts of controversies or disputes that WP:BLPCOI is about. Loki (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  How do you get that from the text of the policy? Your interpretation of the spirit of WP:BLPCOI seems disconnected from the actual text of the policy: Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. So no, the policy doesn't seem as limited as you construe it. In my eyes (and the eyes of multiple administrators above) the text seems written to avoid this exact kind of situation where an editor---who is mutually antagonistic with the subject off-wiki---threatens the neutrality of an article to smear the subject (which has potential legal consequences for us). In fact, if you look beyond the shortcut, the section title at WP:BLPCOI is "Using BLPs to continue disputes" which you admit this likely was and which David did; even the previous title (used at the redirect WP:BLPCOI is "Importation of off-wiki disputes into Wikipedia". Even if we want to limit the scope to "significant" disputes, I think contributing to a national news story about the subject (described as a "hit piece") which early on drew attention for its plans to out the subject is "significant". Speaking personally, none of my personal disputes have involved the New York Times, have yours? I'm not particularly worried about a slippery slope here, especially since we already have a policy on this. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. It's a common-sense, long-overdue solution. →StaniStani 06:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support broadly construed topic ban. This discussion makes me uncomfortable. I believe strongly that productive editors, especially admins, should be encouraged. But I also care about Wikipedia's reputation. Sometimes our community must act to preserve editors and their ability to contribute. Better to act now than further down the road. David Gerard's judgement in this case, over a period of months, calls for a firm corrective. Words from his own keyboard show that his interaction with the subject of an article in Wikipedia space, in a NYT article, and other fora preclude involvement with any connected Wikipedia articles. This T-ban is for the protection of Wikipedia and Gerard. This corrective can help restore confidence in Gerard's judgement. We should place a guardrail to save an editor from spreading a public grudge across the internet. — Neonorange (Phil) 10:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Wugapodes. The lack of self awareness by David Gerard to see a potential issue with this behavior is also troubling. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support a tban based on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles linked by SlimVirgin. An admin has to be held at high standards. Vikram Vincent 14:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support broadly construed topic ban per Mo Billings, Wugapodes (especially), and Levivich. If this had been the behavior of a regular user, they would be topic-banned (if not outright indeffed) in ten seconds. - DoubleCross (‡) 15:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Wug. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Benjamin (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious COI is obvious and Gerard's grudging concession to not directly edit the article itself is inadequate. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Coretheapple, Levivich, Cullen, Mr Ernie, Neonorange and Wugapodes. Breathtaking admin abuse, in my view, and calls for this topic ban at the very least. Jusdafax (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Levivich and others. I note that Gerard's activism has not been restricted to the topic of Scott Siskind, but has also extended to seeking to portray the rationality and effective altruism communities in the least favourable light possible, for example, edit warring on the Effective_altruism page. RyanCarey1 (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent edit wars and other WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Traineek

Traineek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently managed to reach 4RR twice on the article Great Wall of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), one day apart, despite two earlier warnings and being reverted by 5 or 6 editors in total. Only after being reverted the 8th or 9th time did Traineek start to respond in the talk page, and they resorted to personal attacks (claiming the others to be all Chinese censors). Now less than 24 hours have passed since the last 4RR and the user is back to edit warring again.

Traineek's other activities include another edit war against consensus on the articles Tang dynasty and Sui dynasty, as well as a section in Goguryeo that reads exactly like the one they are trying to insert to the Great Wall of China page. I cannot find a single edit on non-controversial content in his contribution history. Esiymbro (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not willing to call them "not here" just yet, but obviously the edit warring has to stop. I've blocked for 31 hours. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: Another batch of claims and attacks [63]. Esiymbro (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Persisitent addition of coyrighted material by User:Princelg22

Princelg22 is persistently re-adding copyrighted text into the article Music of Sunda, even after having been warned twice[64][65] on their user page (the first warning was for a different article). This text is taken almost completely verbatim from this page, the only difference being the addiotionally inserted text "but Sundanese compositions and tuning systems are recognizably different". Judging from their replies, they seem to have only limited knowledge of English. –Austronesier (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier, I've partial blocked this user for copyright violations pending response. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 21:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: They continue to edit the page Music of Sunda and others as IP and with a newly created sock account Linguatistic. I've requested PP and opened an SPI. –Austronesier (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:PDKevin reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Making threats of legal action over edits at KDNL-TV. [66] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: You need to revoke PDKevin's talk page access as well. He made comments on his talk page right after you blocked him. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

REFUSING TO DISCUSS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[67] and Talk:Death of Kyal Sin#Not a Bio.

I added some bio info to Death of Kyal Sin, like this Death of Chow Tsz-lok#Personal background. But CommanderWaterford reverted several time. If I cant add bio to this article, sure I will remove bio information in Death of Chow Tsz-lok. Taung Tan (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: First of all this is a Content Dispute. Next: This account has been blocked 2 days ago by Girth Summit because of several WP:NGA and Insults against me and other editors. Not even 24 hours after unblock they reverted several, almost all of my (and others) edits of highly discussed articles which are at AfD Discussions. Those articles were in the first WP:BIO1E Articles, had been directly converted into WP:VICTIM articles in the moment I nominated them for deleting by this editor and now this editor tries to insert (poorly sourced) WP:BIO Info again. I asked them to seek consensus on the talk page before reverting mine and others edits and reverted their edits. Result: They added their opinion on the talk page and reverted my Edits directly afterwards (without seeking consensus). CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This is highly inappropriate. I propose this be speedily closed, and TT indeffed for harassment of other editors. Firestar464 (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464 I did not nothing wrong and why always blame me everyone? I putted ANI for CommanderWaterford's harassment! No one helped me? All of my edits are improved for Burmese article. I'm not doing anything wrong. Why am I to blame? Taung Tan (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Addition: Now the editor is accusing another editor at the Talk Page Discussion of acting "biased" -> [68] CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: A Block has the idea that you learn from your previous behaviour - I, too , had a block last year in my early days and I learned my lesson, I was definitely wrong, had no idea how Wikipedia works and my behaviour was totally inappropriate. You are constantly not assuming good faith to all editors who are not of your opinion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sad and no one help me! I really don't understand English editor, CommanderWaterford alway harass me, please see my talk page and we have a long story. Taung Tan (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Should I leave the wiki? Taung Tan (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you know currently my country is in a bad situation. Burmese people killed day by day. Wikipedia has also been banned. No one has time to edit the Wikipedia at this time. But I did editing Burmese related article for 15 hours of day and everyday because I'm happy to editing on Wikipedia and I love Wiki. I admit my English is very poor but I tried as much as i could. Another senior Burmese editos have retired and I'm alone with other 2 Burmese editor. When I'm in problem, on one help me and i got warning and blame only. I'm very sad. Why? why? Taung Tan (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Taung Tan, once again, I am not the one harassing anyone here. And your English is good enough to raise several discussions, to create articles, to insult other editors etc, etc. I tried several times to help you and explained more than a dozen times how to better edit or interact with others. The situation in your country is indeed unfortunately sad but Wikipedia is not the place to correct this, you could use Twitter or anything similar. There are several Burmese editors and this is not a war or a fight in order to get your edits into articles which - obviously not only I - do not agree on. We can discuss on any content dispute - but in a polite way w/o harassing me or other editors. And once again: ANI is not for Content Disputes. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

please check my contributions, all of my contributions are improved for Burmese articles, I did not violated any Wiki rule excpet uncivil words to other editor. Taung Tan (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Taung Tan, undo this statement quickly - you are here admitting harassing and insulting other editors which is a lot of violation against several "Wiki Rules". Close this discussion, get back to the Talk Page and discuss with me and WWGB your issues (politely!). CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"[P]lease see my talk page and we have a long story" yes indeed- a long story of harassment of CW. I'm sorry about your situation, but unfortunately this isn't an excuse for your behavior. I suggest you refrain from editing the disputed topic area and conversing with CW. Firestar464 (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Because of my previous block, I want fix my problem by legal process like WP:ANI. But I got warning only! I dont understand really. Taung Tan (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Some English senior editor suggested that when I've problem with CommanderWaterford, complain at WP:ANI per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mya Thwe Thwe Khine. That's why i take ANI for my problem. Taung Tan (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford Thanks 11:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

If I do something wrong, point me out, but do not be blame i request to all.Taung Tan (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Taung Tan, thanks for confirming that you're editing in good faith. However, I suggest you read WP:TALKDONTREVERT, WP:RS, WP:AGF, and WP:PA. Also, they didn't understand what was going on when they replied, and the convo has now been collapsed. Good luck. Firestar464 (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please close this discussion. I'm Ok now. Thanks all. Taung Tan (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CommanderWaterford, we know Taung Tan is under stress (experiencing a military coup), has relatively poor English (though not so bad as to be uncommunicative), and is new to editing. So please don't WP:BITE and give them some slack. Maybe let someone else patrol their new articles?

Converting a BLP1E into an event article isn't inappropriate editing: it's a common pattern that new editors don't realise to not make a bio rather than a disappearance/death/etc. article. Including biographical details about the subject of such an article is also not prohibited. Fences&Windows 11:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Fences and windows, I would agree but she is a 2 years very experienced Editor (long history at the Burmese WK Edition) here, absolutely not new to editing. Knows exactly about adopting several policies and her English seem to get worse only in special situations, this is not a new editor. I am far away from biting her anyway, tried to help her several times (see her talk page), she indeed thanked me several times for my help on mine. I have absolutely no personal feelings about those articles, but if we agreed with almost 100% consensus to merge the subject, several days later it is recreated and in the moment of deletion nomination it is converted into a WP:VICTIM I refuse to accept later adding (furthermore poorly sourced!) BIO data into the article and I am by far not alone as you can see at its talk page. Regarding topic ban - no problem at all, I would be thankful to be able to polish my GANs or work on the looonggg AfC Backlogs. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, please have a look at her user page User:Taung_Tan: "2 years 8 months" on Wikipedia is she stating herself. Next: "I'm back to the Wikipedia (my internet home) one day we were free from dictatorship" .... Wikipedia:Advocacy ... new editor ? CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows Thanks admin. Taung Tan (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Withdraw and retired. If I've violate the rules, please block my account for 1 month. Taung Tan (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

167.217.31.47

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP user disruptively using talk page, threatening users who revert them. Eridian314 (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current Burmese case 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You might have seen that, in Burma, the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH) is the only national legislative body, and Min Aung Hlaing's State Administration Council (SAC) has not been recognized by both UN and the world. However, User:Tartan357 has been one-sidedly reverting edits in articles related to the current sensitive case in Burma, by leaving comments in edit history like Incorrect information; CRPH is not in power in Myanmar, there was a coup and the military is in power now. here in which I just added sources (He overacted to me like I'm adding incorrect information. here) and CRPH does not speak for the Burmese government. here. Therefore, I, one of a few active Burmese editors, would like to request for the administrators and other editors' advice for what Tartan357 has been currently doing to the Burmese political articles. Thanks in advance. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

PS– Some editors have been invited to give opinion on this issue. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

​@Zin Win Hlaing: Wikipedia is not for WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. It is not a place to adjudicate legal disputes and determine who the rightful leader of a country is. Please see Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi/FAQ. The fact is that there was a coup d'état and the government in Myanmar is now a military dictatorship. That is a fact. It does not matter that the State Administration Council has not been recognized by both UN and the world. The CRPH is simply not in charge. The sourcing base for this is extremely strong. And yes, after a month of nonstop disruption of exactly this type, I'm reacting firmly. I fail to see what action of mine you think violates Wikipedia policy. Also, WP:CANVASSING ([69], [70], [71], [72]) is not allowed. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Fact? CRPH's legitimacy is also a fact. Why don't you want to accept the fact? And leaving messages on their talk pages is just to request their opinions, nothing related to decisions nor debates nor votes. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 is not normal on Burmese case and so serious. He have reverted all WP:AGF edits from other edtors even that are fix typo see [73]. Why? Do you think Wikipedia is you own??? Ug! Marcus MT (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Marcus MT: possibly this relates to your level of English but just to be clear, this is not fixing a typo [74]. Tartan357 is probably right on the WP:NOTBROKEN point, but even if they're not, it's not a typo. A typo is a typographical error. Traditionally for Wikipedia, this is pushing the wrong key/s (whether extra keys, different keys or even missing one). Nowadays I think some may call an autocorrect error a typo even though that may have little or nothing to do with the user's input. And IMO it's fine to call a spelling mistake a typo in an edit summary (not in article text) even when it's almost definitely simply an error rather than a typo (e.g. independant) since although this isn't strictly correct, it' close enough that it doesn't matter much. But don't call something which is almost definitely an intentional stylistic choice or even a complicated error, a typo since it leads to confusion about what being changed. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 is clearly one sided editor [75], he know nothing about Myanmar because he is not a Burmese. Stop trying to pretend Burmese political expert. You are not an admin and only a low-standard editor. 185.205.142.78 (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Zin Win Hlaing, I have said nothing about their legitimacy. I have said they are not in charge, which represents the strong consensus of reliable sources: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Close Again: This is a content dispute; it has not been discussed on the talk page. This should be closed with a warning about canvasing and reopening closed discussions to Zin Win Hlaing.

JJMC89 closed the previous identical thread at 12:34 am; Zin Win Hlaing recreated it at 12:43 am.  // Timothy :: talk  12:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The first one which had been closed was due to RfC. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply: Zin Win Hlaing This is a content dispute; simply removing the first sentence doesn't change that. I only see two minor conduct issues, one with you canvassing, the other with ownership issues Marcus MT when they state Tartan357 is not normal on Burmese case and so serious. Neither issue is worth an ANI report. You should drop this complaint, request it be closed, and work to gain consensus with sources on the talk page, which has not been done.  // Timothy :: talk  13:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: I also oppose to close this discussion, some shameless are trying to judge of Burmese politic. Do not judge Myanmar's politics Ok? PS, hello old friend bad to meet you again! I'm this one [86], are you remember ? 😂😂🤮185.205.142.78 (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

We (Burmese native) possesses a greater familiarity with our region, culture, and social context. Hopefully that might result in more constructive and cooperating conversations for all of us. Thanks. 185.205.142.78 (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ughh!!!! I checked Tartan's contributions and he have reverted all edits of Burmese editor and warned without guilt. What the hell??? See [87]. How rude is that? 185.205.142.78 (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current Burmese case

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Request comments for the interim government case in Myanmar (Burma). Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

To recap: You might have seen that, in Burma, the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH) is the only national legislative body, and Min Aung Hlaing's State Administration Council (SAC) has not been recognized by both UN and the world. However, User:Tartan357 has been one-sidedly reverting edits in articles related to the current sensitive case in Burma, by leaving comments in edit history like Incorrect information; CRPH is not in power in Myanmar, there was a coup and the military is in power now. here in which I just added sources (He overacted to me like I'm adding incorrect information. here) and CRPH does not speak for the Burmese government. here. Therefore, I, one of a few active Burmese editors, would like to request for the administrators and other editors' advice for what Tartan357 has been currently doing to the Burmese political articles. Thanks in advance.

​@Zin Win Hlaing: Wikipedia is not for WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. It is not a place to adjudicate legal disputes and determine who the rightful leader of a country is. Please see Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi/FAQ. The fact is that there was a coup d'état and the government in Myanmar is now a military dictatorship. That is a fact. It does not matter that the State Administration Council has not been recognized by both UN and the world. The CRPH is simply not in charge. The sourcing base for this is extremely strong. And yes, after a month of nonstop disruption of exactly this type, I'm reacting firmly. I fail to see what action of mine you think violates Wikipedia policy. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You've also engaged in improper WP:CANVASSING regarding this ANI discussion: [88], [89], [90]. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

And some more canvassing: [91]. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting users for abusive behavior and excessive trolling in sockpuppet investigations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am here report 2 users for abusive behavior and excessive trolling in sockpuppet investigations R1 User:NEDOCHAN and User:Squared.Circle.Boxing. Trying to team up to get people blocked left and right. R2 R3

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georges_St-Pierre&type=revision&diff=1010908732&oldid=1010646416 - I updated information to correct info which based on the fighter last fight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFzGM3vxs_U which is Middleweight (185lbs). There no evidence of he going back 170lbs last fight.
2. They are obliviously reporting anyone and get them blocked because they use the "words" just like that. If i see someone use the word "THE". They can get blocked for being same person because the users used "THE". This is what happening.
3. I am here to request a instant dismiss & prevent the SPI case from moving forward because of excessive trolling from 2 users i am reporting. RepublicanMMA (talk)

Just a note from an outsider, but "this SPI must be stopped" does not ring of virtue and transparency. Do with that what you will. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@RepublicanMMA: the accounts that have been blocked as a result of these SPIs were not blocked because of words they used...they were blocked because they were confirmed to be socks. If you're not one of the individuals I suspect you are, then why do you want the SPI shut down? No harm done if you're found to be innocent. – ².O.^Boxing 22:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The inevitable vandalism at Woody Allen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm surprised that this wasn't locked long ago. The result is a consistent rainstorm of WP:BLP violations. I don't know how far back it goes, but a summary look at the last week alone is sufficient to get an idea. This begs for a lot of rev/deletion. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's been protected and some revdel done. Let us know if you think anything else needs to be hidden. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There's an insistence on calling Soon-Yi his stepdaughter [92], [93], which despite the implication may not meet the level of defamatory. Or maybe it does. And the predator business [94], [95]. It looks like you and Ohnoitsjamie got the most blatant stuff. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Revdel'd all 4 of those, thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clownshking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Clownshking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• awareness of DS/Horn: since 03:34, 3 March 2021‎
• vandalism:
  • Fano (nationalist movement) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): replacement of sourced material by material strongly disagreeing with the references;
  • Mai Kadra massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): replacement of sourced material by material strongly disagreeing with the references;
• Timeline of the Tigray War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): repeated introduction of material that vaguely could be inspired from the source, but is not stated: unsourced edit 1; repeat of edit 1; 3rd iteration of edit 1; addition of source that says nothing to support the claim in the context of the 2020 timeline;
• removal of sourced material:
  • Mai Kadra massacre: removal of sourced material (contributed by me), calling it "ethnoracist vandalism" without any real explanation; removal of reference (contributed by me)
• personal attacks: evidence-less claim that I'm a sock puppet; claim that I'm "AntiEritrea and ProTPLF"; calling me a racist in an edit summary (without evidence);
• removal of two warnings from Clownshking's own talk page: (same as edit with 'racist' in edit summary)
• unclear if acting to construct and encyclopedia: awareness of meta-level Wikipedia policies, but difficulty with the core policies of sourcing, NPOV, and AGF: accusations without evidence
• Demographics of Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): refusal to accept elementary reasoning about sourcing for demography and refusal to make even a minimal attempt to understand the reasoning and evidence presented.

Boud (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You have been stalking me on Wikipedia and giving warnings without good faith. I am not a vandal since I don’t edit much. You have been acting like a moderator not only on me but other users. Also setting this ANI like you did with that other user Leech only shows you are not editing in good faith.Clownshking (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Any editor may give a good-faith warning to other editors about inappropriate conduct; it doesn't just have to be administrators doing that. I also don't see evidence that Boud is acting in bad faith. I would encourage you to explain how your edits are good-faith improvements to the named articles. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems bad faith editing to portray an entire ethnic group as bad. I disagree with that and Boud has pretty much stifled my ability to edit without a threat of warnings every time there is a disagreement. Look he disagreed with two editors and jumps into using warnings and taking us to Wikipedia court. That is bad faith behavior. He needs to explain why editing these articles especially about an ethnic group with the POV of bad group. I was correcting that because broad brush attacks on an ethnic group is wrong. He also did not reach consensus then he uses ANI against two of us. Clownshking (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Again, I ask how your edits are good-faith improvements to the named articles. Further, you have made some serious allegations against Boud. Do you withdraw the allegations and accusations of racism against them? —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

My edits were good faith because they brought balance to these articles where they were portraying the Amhara ethnicity as bad. That is not fair. Also NPOV would mean to show the TPLF as the agent of the conflicts. When Boud can agree and show fairness in his edits about Non-Tigrayans ie Amhara then I will not call him a racist. Are you neutral in this? Also why did you refer to Boud as them? Is he not just one user?Clownshking (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Hrm. Are we to interpret that as you're just calling them racist as leverage over them? (And please note that I use singular they when the gender of an individual is unclear.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) Clownshking (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Please focus on the content and not on the contributors. A quick read of your edits shows that any bias introduced was done by you, not Boud; your edits painted Fano as better than the sources indicated. Accordingly, I see no indication that Boud is acting in bad faith or with bias or malice—so continuing to accuse the editor of racism would be deemed as a bad-faith action and personal attack by any person who made such accusation.

If you would like to provide sources to counter, for instance, the Guardian story in the Fano (nationalist movement) article, then the place to discuss—to civilly discuss matters of the article including content and sourcing, not to discuss editors and their motives—is Talk:Fano (nationalist movement). You need to work to build consensus for the changes you seek. —C.Fred (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to add my five cents, I think it's awfully telling that Clownshking's first edit consists of them possibly calling another user an ethnic slur and that most of their edits is just basically them of accusing other people of being sockpuppets, "TPLF apologists", "paid to spread disinformation" etc.The Peoples Front of Judea (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Several recent edits by you on Mai Kadra massacre have helped preserve NPOV and proper matching with sources there. Thanks! However, this entry in the RfC ignores the content of the RfC and focuses on me. (The comment effectively states that I am the UN DESA Population Division. I appreciate the compliment, but I cannot take credit for UN DESA publications.) Boud (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Boud actually no, the discussion is there and not here. And the statement Boud’s estimate is exactly that since you are the one pushing that estimate in Wikipedia. All the sources disagree with your claim. But you can continue to discuss there instead of here unless this ANI is just being used to try to paint me as a bad faith editor? Are you assuming I did not respond to your RfC in good faith?Clownshking (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You were asked by C.Fred to focus on content, not the user. I'm giving evidence. I'm not aiming at any particular result; I didn't propose what action, if any, should be taken. I can see that on some pages such as Isaias Afwerki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), you seem to be accepting to edit together with other editors and you've started showing understanding of sourcing. However, here there is a misunderstanding of the need for an RfC to be properly threaded so that others can follow the conversation; here there is a focus on my apparent ethnic identity as a Tigrayan (I'm quite honoured, I admit), which doesn't help focus on the point (the widespread and systematic torture of Eritreans is on-topic, because it affects emigration, mortality and the demographics of Eritrea); and this edit says that the United Nations DESA Population Division is an "obscure POV not based on consensused facts", which does not look to me like participating seriously in the discussion. I gave a link to the article for UN DESA, and it's difficult to see how someone can read that article and then say that UN DESA is "obscure". Even if I had not given the link, elementary respect for the arguments of others means seriously considering the possibility that others are correct; it would not have been difficult to find the UN DESA article before dismissing it as "obscure". I have put in considerable effort in looking at the sources provided by Leechjoel9 (none of which are demographic sources). Boud (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually the reason I asked your background is to understand your POV. The comment you made using words that are circulated in Tigrayan circles whom some masquerade as Eritrean asylum seekers was made by you? Apparently you have created this ANI on myself and Leechj all because neither of us agree with your single source obscure data. Again you can continue content dispute there instead of bringing that here. Using the ANI to force me to accept your POV is unacceptable because if that is the case and Wikipedia allows this then I won’t edit anymore. In good faith why did you mention accusations of torture tactics in a discussion about population number? Seemed completely off topic and distracting to the topic. Look this is getting useless stalking my edits and trying to control my POV. Again I won’t discuss demographics or any article here.Clownshking (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You stated my apparent background, you didn't ask about it: why is a Tigrayan like yourself. Widespread and systematic torture affects the probability of people fleeing from a country, which affects the demographics of that country. Stalking: you happen to edit pages that I have been editing for quite some time. WP:AGF means making a reasonable effort to read what the others say and to read, or at least browse, the references that they provide, especially if you want to claim that the reference is "obscure". Boud (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Well you have track record of using the ANI to settle content disputes. Apparently you used the nuclear option instead dialogue. Why attack me or Leechj simply because we disagree with you. Yes I did ask questions. And you editing longer doesn’t mean you solely control the content of the data. You disputed the other sources but you get upset because your source is not accepted therefore you send us to ANI. If you want to own all articles of the HOA maybe you should request Wikipedia to give you ownership until then I have a right to disagree. The stalking part is your following me on Wikipedia and crying to the moderators to do something about me. Seems you are trying to convince the admins to ban me?Clownshking (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You're doing a very good job of that on your own. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, and wait for admins to weigh in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record I have not started an ANI for any reason. Boud has started ANIs for simple consensus disputes. If the goal here is to get myself or Leechj banned then what’s the point of an ANI if Boud can simply have someone like yourself already taking his side on this manufactured issue. Disagreement on topics should not be used as a proof of bad editing.Clownshking (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to add my own experience, concerning the Mai Kadra massacre, he kept undoing edits to bring the article back to the version of the article made by user BiniamAmbachew (who was blocked for his edits). Which wasn't sourced at all and gave a pro-Amharan pov. Changing the deaths to 1,200 and made the sole victims Amhara or Amhara/some other group not Tigrayan, and going against what sources say. Also removed Amhara Region Special Force as a perpetrator even though that was also sourced.[96]

Finally concerning the Fano article, he also undid edits back to edits made by BiniamAmbachew describing the Fano as "honorable soldiers and millita members that protect and defend Ethiopia. Fano soldiers work to stablize and prevent any foriegn army from invading ethiopia." When none of the sources said that and he didn't give any sources to back it up. As well as attributing massacre by the Fano to the Samri. Not saying the Samri are good and all, but the sources said they were committed by the Fano.[97] Wowzers122 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

In the Timeline of the Tigray War article he kept claiming that the TPLF (Rebel group in the war) was threatening to overthrow the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments before the war even started and said there was video proof but gave no sources aka original research.[98] And kept undoing edits of people when they tried to remove this unsourced conflict.[99] He would end up giving a source however but the source never even mentioned it and he tried to pass it off.[100] Wowzers122 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Admins I am Requesting that this ANI be closed because I’ve sufficiently participated in resolving any issues that Boud had brought up?Clownshking (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the points initially raised, I agree that Clownshking's editing behaviour with respect to Fano (nationalist movement), Mai Kadra massacre and Timeline of the Tigray War has improved and no longer qualifies as vandalism. His/her talk page comments continue in some cases to assume bad faith without contributing sourced edits, but this is annoying rather than obstructive. At the Demographics of Eritrea RfC, Clownshking does not (yet) appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, e.g. claiming that the most recent (2010) Eritrean National Statistics Office estimate should be ignored, despite apparently not having browsed the official Eritrean source that s/he asserts is unreliable, and then attempting Wikilawyering rather than looking at the substance of arguments. Clownshking does not appear willing to acknowledge the clearly stated option by a previously uninvolved editor and wishes to close the RfC without acknowledging or understanding that user's argument. My guess is that this user is making an effort to learn, and could learn, Wikipedia norms, but currently is being confused by the WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT talkpage behaviour of Leechjoel9. For the goals of protecting Wikipedia and to allow content development, I would suggest that the Leechjoel9 case be closed first. Boud (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

And yet: User_talk:Clownshking#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction. Anyway, returning to my point in the other thread. This noticeboard may be fine for more obvious AE matters, but the more nuanced ones aren't as likely to lead to any action (often, not even an expressed "no action" conclusion) as it would at WP:AE — a noticeboard whose structure tempers the flow of information in a number of important ways. Speaking from the experience of being one the top admin contributors to either noticeboard, which I think counts for quite a bit. El_C 13:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Post-post close note: this user claims to be new, but their edit summary here does make my spidey sense tingle... El_C 13:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leechjoel9

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Leechjoel9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Leechjoel9 discusses politely on issues related to Eritrea, but repeatedly reverts, removing sourced material from articles, and in discussing on talk pages, does not appear to understand WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED:

• Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Eritrean population: 3.5 million or 6 million? The most reliable source for the population of Eritrea, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) Population Division 2019 report, appears to be unacceptable to this user. I NPOVed the article, improving the sources to have specific dates and archives rather than bare URLs, citing both the 3.5 million and 6 million population estimates. Leechjoel9 reverted this NPOVed version (along with some other intervening edits), asking to discuss. In the discussion, Leechjoel9 provided some extra sources, which is fine, but none appear to be as detailed and serious as the UN DESA report. I eventually proposed that this first be sorted out at Demographics of Eritrea, but Leechjoel9 has reverted a significant amount of work, despite it containing no controversial or weakly sourced claims.
• Eritrean Defence Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Eritrean Defence Forces' (EDF) presence in the Tigray War:

• I added specific, falsifiable claims by WP-notable people (former defence minister, founder of a peace research institute) about divisions of the EDF present in the war. Leechjoel9 did several reverts of material to keep any mention of EDF participation in the Tigray War out of the EDF article:
• 19:55, 22 February 2021
• 18:08, 26 February 2021
• 21:02, 26 February 2021‎
• 21:46, 26 February 2021‎

Leechjoel9 accepted to talk but does not appear to understand WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. S/he has been aware since late January 2021 that Eritrean involvement in the Tigray War was the consensus point of view at the Tigray War article (anti-consensus POVs can still be included, of course).

• Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Reverts by Leechjoel9 to keep any mention of EDF participation in the Tigray War out of the Eritrea article:

• See the lower part of this edit, which reverted Tobby72's edit
• Another revert of Tobby72's edit

Again, Leechjoel9 accepted to talk, but firstly seemed to confuse my edits with edits by others, secondly seemed to wish to discuss a separate topic (the population issue), and finally returned to the issue, but without providing a serious argument for overriding WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED.

• Asmara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Leechjoel9 appeared to wish to exclude listing the currently most famous person in the world born in Asmara, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who was in world news headlines almost daily for several months of 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, on the grounds of citizenship.

• Leechjoel9 removed Tedros from the list
• and again removed Tedros from the list

Leechjoel9 accepted to talk: Talk:Asmara#Notable people; Talk:Asmara#Notable people again, but the most recent restoral of Tedros to the list was again reverted by Leechjoel9.

Leechjoel9 has been aware of Horn of Africa discretionary sanctions since late January.

There's obviously nothing wrong with an editor presenting the POV of the Eritrean government, but not to the degree of using fringe or weakly sourced points of view to exclude the generally higher quality sourced points of view. This is a tricky case, because the editor engages in discussion that is polite and makes statements that generally appear reasonable, but the reasonable statements are vague and evade the issues, ignore most of the specific points made by me and other editors, and the statements and reverts don't seem to acknowledge Wikipedia policy. The actions by this editor constitute a timesink, appearing to suggest that s/he owns several articles, with the right to exclude unapproved material; s/he does not appear willing to accept NPOV. My suggestion is a topic ban. Otherwise, Wikipedia Eritrea-related articles risk looking like an advertisement for the Eritrean government, in some cases (population) sourced from bare urls rather than dated, archived, up-to-date specific references. Boud (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Boud is trying to politicise several articles relating to Horn of Africa. In particular subjects relating to the Tigray War which is ongoing in Ethiopia’s Tigray region. The Horn of Africa are under discretionary sanctions wikipedia:ACDS. Which means users must pertain level of caution when making edits to these articles. Most importantly reach consensus before making controversial edits or edits that affects large parts the articles. From my knowledge the subjects that are covered in this dispute are:
• Eritrea- Dispute started when the user wanted to include accusations of Eritrean involvement in the Tigray War, which is an ongoing conflict in Ethiopia. These allegations are one sided, not neutral, not verified and are views or/and allegations by certain individuals that are involved in the war/conflict. These accusations have not been verified and confirmed by a third party i.e by Human right commissions, Human rights organisations, governments or government officials. The government of Ethiopia (country of the conflict) has denied Eritrean involvement. Eritrea has also denied involvement, the UN secretary-general of the United Nations António Guterres, and former US- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo officially denied Eritrean involvement conflict when the conflict was at its peak. So what I have asked this user is to be neutral in editing this article in relation to this conflict since the conflict is complex and it’s not possible to provide all sides of the conflict in this article. I have advised that content relating to the conflict is better suited in the article that is about the conflict which is the Tigray War article. I have also suggested to the user that such content can be described short, for instance that there have been accusations against Eritrea in the conflict in Tigray, Ethiopia and that Eritrea have denied such involvement along with credible cited sources.
• After bringing up above issue the user went on with questioning the population estimates of Eritrea. I asked for engagement in the discussion created by this user [101], still this user made the edits prior to even beginning responding in the discussion thread [102]. I urged the user to engage in the discussion and reach consensus before making these edits, [103]. After that the user started engaging in discussion but has repeatedly added content relating to the population of Eritrea with out reaching consensus several times, while the discussion has been ongoing 1)[104],2)[105]. In the discussion page of the article I provided four sources independent of each other that indicates that the population of Eritrea is around six million. This is supported by CIA estimates for 2021, African development bank [106], COMESA-Comon Market for East and South Africa [107], and two government sources. The two government sources, one that mentions that the population was 3,5M in 2002 [108], and one that mentions that population was close to six million in 2020 [109]. The government sources are consistent with the three other sources. The user is solely relying on one source for the population which is decreasing the population of Eritrea with three million individuals, half of the population! I have argued that the UN source are possibly basing their data on older data (prob.2002) when the government of Eritrea reported a population of 3,5 million, so that would be the least credible one. For this reason the population should be based on the data that currently on the article which has been explained in the article talk section, along with the ones provided here.
• Lastly the user wanted to add content to Eritrea’s history which is perfectly fine. The problem is that the user added redundant information that already existed in the section that brings up accusations of Human rights abuses. I kindly asked this user to add this content in this section and not add it the history section since it’s not content relevant to the “History Of Eritrea”.
• Eritrean Defence Forces- Here the user have been adding similar content as in the Eritrea article, non verified and non neutral accusation from a party participating in the conflict/war in Tigray War/conflict. I have told the user to add this type of content in the relevant Tigray War article.
• Demographics of Eritrea -User decided to add a huge section to this article knowing that the same issues about population of Eritrea is being discussed in Eritrea article and also that this subject is under Discretionary Sanctions which makes it even more important to reach consensus when making so big changes. Still the user again preceded doing changes to this article. See [110]
• Asmara-In this article there was a dispute of the WHO director Tedros could be in the list of Notable person of Asmara, the capital of Eritrea. Which he can, however his names on the list has caused controversy since he is an anti-Eritrea figure supporting and a member of “Tigray People Liberation Front” the main political party in Tigray conflict. This has caused users removing his name from the list. I proposed several solutions to this issue in the talk page of the article. That discussion is ongoing. However user Boud has taken opportunity to involve the only user that objected to my proposition and asked this user to get involve in the the Eritrea article, which is against Wikipedia policy.
• Overall the dispute can be sorted with engagement in the discussion, However this user must refrain from making edits without reaching consensus, per above explanation. The user also needs to acknowledge that these articles are under wikipedia:ACDS, to avoid breaching the discretionary sanctions, which this user might have done already. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a detail on the Eritrea Ministry of Information URL: "one that mentions that population was close to six million in 2020 [332]", to explain why I didn't include it: the URL does *not* state the nearly 6 million estimate. Boud (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Leechjoel9, you said that the person's political view "has caused users removing his name from the list". Can you provide diffs or evidence showing at least two users removing his name from Asmara? Or are you the only one who removes his name from the article about the city? I wasn't able to find anyone except you removing his name, but I only spent a couple of minutes looking. If I overlooked other editors making the same edits, please share the proof here. This looks like slow-motion WP:Edit warring to me, and you could get blocked for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Here is recent removal which triggered the latest issue in the Asmara article [111]. However I did provide a solution, to link to this list instead and /or adding a list of notable Eritreans from Asmara instead since would be more relevant to the article. If I recall, it happened before I’ll try find another similar edit. As mentioned above his name can stay on the list, in the talk section of the article there is a discussion that I’ve started about the usages of notable lists in that article. Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment by Alex2006:I would like to intervene because I am also part of it. The ip removed Tedros from the list of Asmara's notable persons without giving a reason, and I, who have the article on my watchlist, restored it. The removal was clearly disruptive editing. After my restore Leechjoel9 came in and removed it again.[112] After two more reverts I opened a thread on his discussion page asking why, and he replied that that name was "controversial" for political reasons. The solution according to him was either to remove non-Eritreans from the list, or to split the list from the article.[113] Clearly doing ethnic cleansing of a list goes against at least a couple of policies, and is not a negotiable solution by consensus. Splitting the list would make sense if there were hundreds of names, but there are only eight names. After that, two other users came along and restored the name for the same reasons as me. However, each time the name was removed again by him, who proposed more and more fanciful solutions, but all with one point in common: that non-Eritreans linked to Asmara must disappear from the article because Asmara is now an Eritrean city. By the way, this is not his first attempt to remove the list: he had already tried it a few months ago. He deleted the list,[114] after my revert he opened a thread on Asmara's discussion page, writing that the list should be split (deleting a list is a rather strange way of splitting it), but after my objections he gave up.[115] At that time there were only two non-Eritreans on the list: Gianfranco Rosi, a famous director, and Remo Girone, a theatre and television actor, both born in Asmara. According to his latest statements, neither of them is worthy of inclusion in the article. At this point (and after several edit wars on this article which I won't mention) I think that you have more elements to judge: personally, I support a time limited topic ban, hoping that in the meantime he will understand on what principles Wikipedia works. Alex2006 (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Alessandro57 Your entitled to your views but banning users simply because they don't agree with you is not a solution and not how Wikipedia works. I have been on Wikipedia long enough to understand this. I would prefer if you would engage in the Asmara discussion in the talk page, as you see now Tedros is still on the list as mentioned three times now so that is not an issue. But apparently that is not enough reason to remove him from the list. The others ones will certainly not cause controversy since they are not known individuals to many, however the question about a list of Eritreans from Asmara that are notable to Asmara is still legitimate question. Because there are at least 10-20 that can be included in the list, so work would be done to achieve this and this was why I started the question in the article, similar questions have been raised before yes but nothing with that discussion, it was revived again after the ip removed Tedros from the list. Leechjoel9 (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment by Alex2006:I see that unfortunately you continue not to understand: in my opinion you should not be temporarily banned because I disagree with you, but because you do not understand (or if you do, you refuse to comply with) the policies and principles of this encyclopedia. I have participated in both discussions, trying to explain to you why you (as well as I and anyone else here) cannot even begin a discussion that is based on the assertion that a list of notable people has to be cleaned up on an ethnic basis. The sentence "the whole section of notable people of Asmara should include Eritreans and not non-Eritreans" [116] (BTW, Rosi and Girone are both Italians, so according to your proposal they have to be excluded) needs no further explanation about your real intentions. And what does being popular have to do with being on the list? So, according to you, if Fellini was born in Asmara, he should be removed immediately, because he is known all over the world, and this would make him "controversial". In this whole story, the only one who has having problems with this list, for months, is you, and the reason should be clear to everyone at this point. And with that I'm done, I hope the admins do what they have to do. Alex2006 (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Once again (for the fourth time) , Tedros is still on the list, I have refrained from editing that part, so there is currently no issue about this, it is already cleared out the way. I have not said anyone should be excluded based of ethnicity, please stop assuming stuff and commenting on my behalf. I have seen several notable list that are divided by nationality, perhaps they were incorrectly used on Wikipedia? Suggestions was to add of list of Eritreans from Asmara, If that is not possible according to Wikipedia policy then I of course agree with you that we can’t add such list. Leechjoel9 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Leechjoel9 wrote: accusations of Eritrean involvement in the Tigray War ... These accusations have not been verified and confirmed by a third party i.e by Human right commissions, Human rights organisations. See: Amnesty International; also, Human Rights Watch: Ethiopia: Eritrean Forces Massacre Tigray Civilians. Boud (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A policy which has not yet been raised here is WP:NOTPAPER. Leechjoel9's live edits have an average size of -92 bytes (a negative number of bytes); they remove more material than they contribute. Eritrea is a topic that has too little coverage in en.Wikipedia rather than too much. Boud (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have engaged in discussion with you in a number of articles. You simply disagree with me in these subjects. The right place for discussions are the talk pages of those articles. Every user is different on Wikipedia, and user contributions is not about bytes, the bytes are not static and changes over time depending what’s edited and when. Regarding the coverage of Eritrea, it’s covered on the en.Wikipedia and of course could be covered more like many articles. You still have to gain consensus when users disagrees with you. Actually I’ve tried to improve the coverage on Eritrea and not the opposite. Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You entered text in the talk pages, but that wasn't engagement with the substantive content of what I wrote. Boud (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Independently of me, other users have tried to explain sourcing issues, and have been surprised at outright removal of what they felt was properly sourced material: Ssbbplayer, 13:33, 20 April 2020; OldGalileo, 21:37, 30 May 2020; Pathawi, 20:40, 2 January 2021; regarding substantive discussion, see Pathawi, 23:51, 2 January 2021. Boud (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been following the Timeline of Tigray war and Tigray war for a few weeks now and Boud has behaved as if he owns those articles. Also, many of the users who edit simultaneously with Boud seem to agree and edit the same pages. I suspect Boud is a sock puppeteer and is using these other accounts to form this false consensus. Just reading all of the other users commenting in the same style of English and editing the same articles. Moderators how do I open a Sockpuppet Inquiry on Boud?Clownshking (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: I disagree with the claim, but here is the place to start reading: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Handling suspected sockpuppets. Boud (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you now randomly finding ways to come up with accusations? All the discussion were solved or ended within those discussions. You lacked to reach consensus on several articles and now going of topic. I couldn’t agree more with user Clownshking that Boud is very active on the Tigray War article. One thing I noticed is that Boud is informing users about the discretionary sanctions WP:ACDS for Horn of Africa on user talk pages. I do agree that it is good to inform users about this, however this might discourage users from editing, especially since Boud is active editing these articles and involved in the disputes. Leechjoel9 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Leechjoel9: The past discussions may have been solved, but they may help understand the current situation, and uninvolved people will judge whether you have learnt from the past.

I agree that I am active on the Tigray War article. However, adding sourced content or improving the quality of sources does not mean WP:OWNing.

TLDR: To those interested in the population of Eritrea issue, I suggest this self-contained summary of the UN DESA Revision 2019 official explanation of how Eritrea seemed to drop in population by 1.8 million from 2017 to 2019 (the whole times series since 1950 was revised in 2019); the current best estimate is about 3.5 to 3.6 million. To see a lack of substantive arguments against a proposal on the same talk page, scroll up. Boud (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Boud you clearly have a AntiEritrea and ProTPLF POV. You have been overly involved in depicting the Tigray conflict with all the articles that you have edited or made up to promote the TPLF view. Nothing has been confirmed but only weaselly worded reported. You present Tplf Statements as fact but contest PM Abiy or Eritrean governments statement as not reliable. And you have been using multiple accounts to make a false sense of consensus. You also left message on my Talk page as if you are some kind of authority on Wikipedia. I stopped editing any articles at this point because of you. Are you a moderator? If not why are you contesting and discussing adnaseum about these certain articles? The population of Eritrea has multiple reliable sources stating a range in 6 million but you have gone too far with your one source cross examining the other official sources. The consensus is 6 million and not 3.5 million. And what is the point of this ANI to keep discussing your one source?Clownshking (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record: my POV in Wikipedia editing is neither anti-Eritrea nor pro-TPLF; it is pro-Wikipedia, i.e. based on the sources and NPOV. If you seriously think I'm sockpuppeting, then you should file a request instead of repeating your claim here, which is the wrong place for that. Accusations should not be made lightly. Messages on talk pages by me do not imply any kind of authority on Wikipedia. We don't have moderators on Wikipedia; we have a community. My comment was meant to help because your edit did not match the content of the source. We assume good faith and do not accuse each other of trying to support or oppose particular groups. This AN/I is about Leechjoel9 who "repeatedly reverts, removing sourced material from articles, and in discussing on talk pages, does not appear to understand WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED"; I added WP:NOTPAPER as an overlapping issue; and the difficulty in substantive engagement on talk pages is a related timesink issue. Regarding sources, I recommend that you read the UN DESA Revision 2019 official explanation by demographers of why the population of Eritrea is currently best estimated as 3.5 million and why 1.8 million Eritreans "vanished" from the point of view of the improvement in historical estimates for a country that has never had a census. In fact, here I have brought attention to the Eritrean National Statistics Office 2010 estimate of 3.2 million in 2010, which matches the UN DESA Revision 2019 value of 3170.437 thousand for the year 2010. The relevance to AN/I is whether Leechjoel9 (and you?) can accept that sources are not just websites. For demographic information, demographic organisations are the best source. Boud (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

UN DESA is not the census taker of any country! There are more sources disagreeing with your Source. Stop pushing your agenda. You are being a disruptive editor pushing your narrow one source agenda. Your one source is not consensus by definition. Yes there will be Sockpuppet SPI on you. Btw I will talk with a real moderator please stop threatening new editors with your threats of getting banned. You did that to me and now some editor Biniam on FANO nationalist article. Clownshking (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment by Alex2006: Clownshking, these are ad hominem arguments that have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If you have problems with Boud open a separate thread in AN/I. However, consider that if he hadn't opened this thread about Leechjoel9, I would have done it within a few hours. As for myself, I don't deal with the horn of Africa except marginally (I only have Asmara on my watchlist) I've been on wikipedia for 15 years, so I have some experience and, like many experienced users, I do routinely some anti-vandalism work. In this context I've noticed in the last few months a disruptive behaviour from Leechjoel9. And that is what is being talked about here. Alex2006 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, the subjects brought up by Clownshking is relevant to the discussion. Boud has in my view not acted responsible, judging by all content this user has been adding to Horn of Africa articles knowing they're under WP:ACDS. Despite knowing this the user added disputed content several times before reaching consensus which the edit diffs I provided shows. One can’t impose his or her views by force in articles and on others users, you got to engage in discussion to form consensus. Alessandro57 reporting users just because you feel they disagree with you on a subject is not first step to resolve disputes over content. I fully engaged with you through the talk page of Asmara article. Ive been around long enough to tell the difference between vandalism and an ordinary content dispute. I have also done anti-vandalism work when I’ve seen vandalism being committed. Leechjoel9 (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Leechjoel9: Regarding "has in my view not acted responsible, judging by all content this user has been adding to Horn of Africa articles knowing they're under WP:ACDS": discretionary sanctions are fully compatible with WP:NOTPAPER. COVID-19 Wikipedia pages have been under discretionary sanctions since 17 March 2020, but many Wikipedians have added a huge amount of content to COVID-19 pages. The sanctions are not meant to slow down the addition of content by discussions where the meaning of sourcing is ignored and where points are not responded to properly. Even now, after you have failed to show why a highly reputable demography research organisation should be ignored, and after I did the work to solve the population-of-Eritrea puzzle by finding the UN DESA 2019 Revision Release-Note-v1, and I found and showed an official Eritrean Ministry of Local Government + National Statistics Office estimate (see Sect 1.1.4 on pdf page 31), you have not yet restored my edit. Boud (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue was not about wether a user can edit articles that are under sanctions, but your overall edit style and behaviour when editing these articles, despite knowing they are under sanctions I.e handing out sanction warnings to those who disagrees with you, doing changes before reaching consensus, and now not respecting that you haven’t got consensus when it comes to the population estimate and you can’t simply impose your views by force.Leechjoel9 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

So Boud continues to stalk the articles that I edited and then he falsely gives me a vandalism warning. Boud stop harassing me, you do not own those articles. Stop using other accounts. You behavior on Wikipedia is making new users like myself from editing anything. Clownshking (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Clownshking, either file an WP:SPI or withrdaw the accusation of sockpuppetry. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds I will withhold from stating the accusation publicly until an SPI filing.Clownshking (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I found this copyright violation from https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/africa/eritrea-political-geography/tigrinya with a misleading edit summary while investigating another editor. MER-C 10:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have informed I will look into this past edit.Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

After I provided four archival time series of the Eritrean population, which fully explain the variation in estimates of all the sources, again attacked me and ignored the content of the new (in terms of Wikipedia discussion) sources, claiming that "despite all other sources provided showing opposite" I am "trying to impose this view." Leechjoel9 appears to insist on ambiguity in this edit, ignoring my additional work, and doesn't seem to have acknowledged that BubbaJoe123456 favours Option 2 (NPOV) in the the RfC, which I started in response to Leechjoel9's repeated claim that I was opposing "consensus". This user continues to write sentences that seem to make sense, but avoid the point and continue with ambiguity. This specific edit seems to me like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the overall case continues to appear to be not being here to build an encyclopedia. Boud (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Outsider's passing impression

Maybe to reemphasize the point I've just made at ACN (diff), in my experience, these free-flowing, word-limitless threads that concerns AE disputes usually soon become rather impenetrable to outside reviewers. Even just the opening post alone isn't that easy to parse. Overall, that is a lot of text and material that the outside reviewer is expected to wade through. Maybe uninvolved admins will come around who'd be willing and/or able to piece everything together here. But the likelihood that this will turn into a dead-end timesink seems pretty high right now, I'm sorry to say. El_C 13:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Boud has a content dispute with the Consensused demographic of Eritrea article regarding the 6 million figure. He wants to lower the population to 3.5 million based one source UN DESA. However the other official sources give a 6 million figure. Leechj and myself and previous editors who added the 6 millionish have had a consensus. Boud brought ANIs for both myself and Leechj separately accusing us of anything and everything. Afterwards he would continue the content dispute in both ANIs as well as the Talk page of the Demographics of Eritrea article. I don’t get why he needs to use ANIs for dispute that is already being discussed in the talk page of the article. Both ANIs have become open ended where Boud brings every perceived slight as a major violation of Wikipedia rules. This appears as misuse of ANIs to force his POV on us and the articles he disagrees with. Is this acceptable good faith editor behavior?Clownshking (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I did my best to write the case as fairly as possible, with specific evidence, in a structured way. I don't feel that it would be fair for someone to be topic-banned without the evidence being clearly presented.

I would appreciate closure of this case, independently of the Clownshking case. The Leechjoel9 case is highly unusual in my experience: s/he presents arguments which at the surface seem to be reasonable, but on checking properly are generally vague and not supported by the evidence. His/her text contribution in live edits to Wikipedia is on average negative (-92 bytes, see above), and the effect is to block development of Eritrea related pages on Wikipedia while refusing to discuss sources rationally and precisely, and (for example) refusing to accept that an article on demographics should be preferably, or, at least (under NPOV), include demographic sources along with non-demographic sources. Should I be the one to call for closure or make a proposal for closure? or someone uninvolved? Boud (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This level of assumptions about Leechj is quite disturbing. I mean you are admitting to tracking every metric of an editor for the sole purpose of what? Ban or Block? What do you want to happen to myself or Leechj?Clownshking (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I have engaged extensively in discussion with Boud in several articles. For the population estimate Boud lacked to get the support for the proposal. If you don’t reach consensus you also got to acknowledge this, this was the point. Everything have been addressed in the talk page of the articles. If we look into the behaviour it’s Boud that have made personal attacks and assumed a lot of stuff, see the users comments in this thread. The user filed an ANI despite me discussing politely in the talk pages of the articles according to the user (see the beginning of the thread). Actually I could of filed an ANI against this user in the first place, since the user added disputed content before reaching consensus (see diffs above), despite user knowing very well that the articles where under sanctions. I saw this as a dispute over content and discussed the matter in the talk page of the articles, all according WP guidelines and policies. I still see the talk page as the right place to solve these issues. Leechjoel9 (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree Leechj, all of this could’ve have been discussed on the articles talkpage. Also he created several sections basically asking to add his source as the only one. We looked at his source which was not clear and required to do calculations which he mentions. I read that we aren’t supposed to do original research. Essentially he was doing population statistics using raw data and charts to come up with a number of 3.5 million in the year 2020? Very strange by logic Eritrea’s population did not grow from 1995 at 3.5 million but even reduced? All of the other sources which include CIA etc give the 6 million figure which makes sense even for a country with migration. Using the ANIs to punish or threaten editors into agreeing with his POV is not good faith editing.Clownshking (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I can also point out that Boud has created 9 new sections in the talk page of the articles. In the talk page of Demographics of Eritrea (8) and in Eritrea article (1), all relating to the same issue which is the population estimates of Eritrea. This makes it harder for users involved, Admins, and outsider to follow the discussion in an easy way. I don’t think it’s a constructive way to create meaningful discussions. Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Modularity is a key to separating out different issues. Boud (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor refuses to communicate, adds unverifiable information, falsely marks all edits as minor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wilkja19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Wilkja19's editing strikes me as seriously problematic:

1. they make changes to articles without ever providing reliable sources
2. they never explain their changes in edit summaries
3. they falsely mark all their edits as minor
4. they have never responded to any attempt at communicating with them, in just under three years of editing. Not a single post on an article talk page; not a single post on a user talk page; not a single response to any of the many messages that have been left for them.

Their conduct has been discussed before ([117],[118]) They have been blocked twice for their failure to communicate, the second time indefinitely, but were unblocked on 22 January by User:Nyttend who stated that they have "done nothing wrong".

I think it is clear that they are doing many things wrong. They are violating core content and conduct policies. Their total refusal to communicate is simply incompatible with participation in a community. The mere fact of marking every single edit as minor without ever providing an edit summary is disruptive. Lack of a summary prevents the building of trust that comes with seeing that someone is doing what they say they are doing; marking an edit as minor when it is not is explicitly not doing what you say you are doing.

So I am raising this here again. I think that communication between editors is essential and nobody has the right to opt out of this. If their changes were not marked as minor, and if they provided reliable sources, I would still be troubled by their refusal to communicate. But these things all together, I cannot see how it can be tolerated. I think that blocking this user until they respond to communications is necessary.

On their talk page, there are arguments that the software they are using to edit is culpable somehow for their refusal to communicate. The software may, it seems, not give them a notification when a message is left for them; it does not prevent them from leaving edit summaries or providing reliable sources, nor compel them to mark their edits as minor. And they are not obliged to use the software in any case.

Andesitic (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This editor was subject to two community discussions and unblocked accordingly. The content changes they make on their account are not problematic -- throughout the AN/ANIs/user talk messages I've reviewed several and would be happy making those changes on my own account. Their editing is within policy. No, they often do not provide an inline citation with their changes. But they change/add entries in tables, which do not have any citations to begin with (which is completely normal for tables). Policy does not require citations for everything (as explained at WP:MINREF). Their changes are correct nevertheless. For example:

• Special:Diff/1009126991, verified by existing source
• Special:Diff/1009126991, verification
• Special:Diff/1009150509, verification
• Special:Diff/1008965161, verification
• Special:Diff/1008850467, verification

Nevertheless, all the above edits (which improve the content of the encyclopaedia for our readers), some of which are supported by existing sources on the article and simply updated, have been reverted by User:Andesitic, who has went around hounding Wilkja's changes, indiscriminately reverting them for being marked as minor and not having an edit summary, and edit warring [119][120][121][122] over a notice an admin (Nyttend) placed when they unblocked Wilkja. Their reverts are not in line with WP:CHALLENGE.

As for the communication issue, progress has been made on T275117, T274404 (currently high priority) & T275118, so hopefully that will be solved soon. In the meantime, this editor does not get any notifications of talk messages, pings, and does not see the message of block messages, due to the awfully designed app they're using. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Their editing is not within policy. Adding information without a reliable source violates a core policy and does not improve the content of the encyclopaedia for readers. Refusing to communicate is incompatible with editing through WP:CONSENSUS.
• I have not done anything indiscriminately.
• The software the user is using does not prevent them from communicating or leaving edit summaries, nor compel them to mark edits as minor. Those behaviours are the user's choice.

Andesitic (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

How are they supposed to know that they should be doing those things, if they've never received any of our messages telling them to do so? It should be mentioned explicitly that this is the official WMF iOS app. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

By doing what many of the rest of us do, look at their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would they know a talk page even exists? The link to it is hidden within the settings. You wouldn't know to look for one unless you knew the concept of a "talk page" is a thing on Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It is? I do not recall having to change any settings when I created an account, just click on the talk page tab. But maybe you are right, as I see not one talk page post, either to theirs or on articles. So what is to be done if a user is not communicating?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed only a handful of user talk edits (and most of those spam or edits to other users' pages), and zero, count 'em, zero article talk page edits from any iOS app user in the past 30 days. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. For user talk pages you need to go into the menu, settings, user, then "Your talk page", iirc. I only know that because I actively hunted through the app to find the link to my talk page, because I already knew what a talk page was and wanted to find the link. If I didn't know what one was there's no reason I'd think to try, never mind check it regularly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ahh I think I see, I use a PC, so I presume its different.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It's truly a miracle the project has survived this long with the Foundation's paid developers working so hard to undermine it at every turn. EEng 21:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Adversity powers evolution. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• If we blocked all the app users, that would probably get the WMF to spend some money to update the app. It's within the community's power to decide what software people can and cannot use to edit (we already regulate this via policy). I'm not sure it's fair to block any one user for using the app, though. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  It sounds like this iOS app is severely flawed. But to reemphasise my point, the problem is the user, and not the app. From the recent changes link, one can see that the app does not prevent anyone from leaving edit summaries, or compel anyone to mark edits as minor. I see iOS app users responding to messages, noting that they have been blocked. This user is making the choice that they will not communicate. I cannot see any reason to tolerate this. It seems to me that anyone who will not communicate cannot be here to build an encyclopaedia. Andesitic (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Will you please read the last 1/3 of this thread before repeating all that yet again? EEng 21:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  If you think I missed some salient point, then say what it is. Andesitic (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  The discussion makes clear that your determination to ascribe motive to an iOS user is unjust. EEng 22:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't make that clear. The app they are using does not prevent them from leaving edit summaries. It does not force them to falsely mark their edits as minor. It does not prevent them from providing reliable sources as required by WP:V. And nothing is compelling them to even use the app. Andesitic (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It does prevent them from knowing that we want them to do all those things, unless they stumble onto their difficult-to-find talk page by accident, or sometimes edit using a web browser. That's the point. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't prevent that. They are able to read policy, guideline and help pages just as anyone else is. It only impedes them from receiving messages. Do you consider them exempt from the rules? They are obviously not going to change their disruptive editing behaviour, so that seems to me the choice - declare them exempt from the rules, or block them until they agree to follow them. Andesitic (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is simply not true. The IOS app makes it easy to do one thing: to access articles and edit them. Doing anything else is extremely laborious, and is actually only doable if one already has a substantial knowledge of the structure of Wikipedia and the necessary navigational concepts it requires. It does absolutely nothing to help a novice editor, or even an intermediate one, go "behind the scenes" and participate as a member of the Wikipedia community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If the app genuinely prevents users from even seeing policy and guideline pages, then it is clearly totally inadequate and should not be used by anyone. The problem remains that this user is editing disruptively and is obviously not going to stop unless some action as taken. Andesitic (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It does not "prevent" you from seeing policy pages, etc. If you know what they're called, you can (laboriously) input them into the search bar and get to them, but that assumes that you already are aware of them and know what they're called, or what shortcut to use. It doesn't "prevent", but it also doesn't in any way facilitate it. And that IOS app users can't see a message flag is downright counter-productive. What the heck were the developers thinking? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"Ignorantia juris non excusat", then? -- 2001:16B8:148F:BC00:3DF5:6CFA:1ED5:3E4F (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

So (I ask again) what are we to do, allow (what is in effect) bad editing practice because we can't tell them it is?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

But I am also concerned about Andesitic, as they seem to have taken it upon themselves to undo Wilkja19, over the issue of no edit summaries.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have undone, in total, twelve of their edits, because they did not provide a reliable source, were not explained, and were falsely marked as minor. These issues make it impossible to trust those edits, and this editor. That is the whole basis of the issue here.

As for what to do, I cannot see any argument against blocking this editor. The alternative is to specifically state that certain users are exempt from the rules, because of the software they use to access Wikipedia. That would seem crazy to me. Andesitic (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

ON pages you do not seem to have edited before, so yes it does look like you are targeting them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I consider Andesitic's actions towards Wilkja (for example, reverting indiscriminately every single one of their contribs since 21 February for minor/edit summary, especially when all of them were correct) to be harassment (see WP:HOUNDING). Suggest WP:BOOMERANG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

And he's still going! Special:Diff/1009533705 & Special:Diff/1001759662 (verification). revert. To a list with no sources (as is usual for lists)! The hounding is obvious. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not doing anything indiscriminately. I have undone twelve edits which did not provide a reliable source, were not explained, and were falsely marked as minor, because these edits were harmful. What is your motivation for so aggressively defending this harmful editor? All they need to do is provide reliable sources, write edit summaries, and not mark major edits as minor. Andesitic (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Wow, this has really opened a can of worms. I'm glad someone is on top of it. Perhaps I need to look again at some of my dealings with anons. Deb (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure HOUND applies here. The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. If an editor has made a recent series of unsourced edits, and refused to comment on said edits, then it is reasonable to address the issue. Ideally by finding source but often by removal. If the editor is using an editing program that doesn't notify them when others revert their edits and try to ping them, well I don't see how that is on the editor trying to fix a problem. Springee (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  It applies because the edits are correct and are all verifiable. The content does not require inline citations per policy. Most casual lists do not have verifications. WP:CHALLENGE requires consideration of the state of the article or portion of the content before tagging or considering removal, and even then advises finding a reference yourself. Ergo, the 'tracking to prevent disruption' does not apply, because their edits aren't disruptive. Andesitic simply has it out for Wilkja (repeated in their "harmful editor", "clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia", etc rhetoric above, and when they were edit warring over an admin-placed notice claiming it was false). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  To emphasise the point, if Andesitic really cared about 'verification' he would've removed the entire list at Randy Zisk, rather than just Wilkja's edits. Similar thing applies for every single other one of his reverts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Regardless of why the editor was not replying to questions about their edits, it looks like the Andesitic was concerned about a legitimate problem. Even if you feel they were misguided, the "no overridingly constructive reason" clause would come into play here. That said, it would be best if they stopped until the community figures out a better way to handle this. I can certainly see how an editor would be frustrated if they made the usual good faith efforts to contact and editor and talk about a problem and received radio silence in reply. Prior to this discussion I would certainly have taken this to be something other than good faith. I've also been concerned when I see editors marking so many edits as minor. Again, perhaps that is an failing of an edit program vs the editor themselves. Springee (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  I would point out these are not stand-alone lists (which is what our policies on lists apply to) but to lists within an article. But I would (as I have said) agree they only seem to have an issue with one editor adding unsourced content to these articles. Yes I think that they should leave the user alone until we figure out how to deal with the communications issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  There is no material on Wikipedia that does not need to be verifiable. Inline citations may not in some cases be essential but verifiability always is.

  Honestly this seems quite straightforward to me. The user is misleadingly marking all their edits as minor, not providing reliable sources, and has never written a single edit summary. Is this behaviour harmful? Yes it is. Will the user change their behaviour? They have been asked to, and it is clear that they will not. So what can be done? Either allow them to continue, or block them until they acknowledge the need to change their editing style. Lesser remedies than blocking will not have any effect because the user refuses to communicate. Why should anyone be allowed to make unsourced, unexplained, misleadingly marked changes? Andesitic (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  You're getting awful close to WP:IDHT territory. EEng 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

When these users are blocked, they do get to see the block message right? Like, a block message saying outstanding notices on your talk page here [link] require your attention, and so on. El_C 22:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Nope. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Total impenetrability, that's just lovely. Sigh. El_C 23:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If the user has a confirmed email address then (by default at least) they will get an email for each talk page message and ping. Wilkja19 does not have a confirmed email address. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

For the confused, here's how the various platforms differ (thanks to ProcrastinatingReader for testing the iOS stuff):

Comparison of communication features as of Feb 2021

Editor	"New message" alert	Other alerts	Custom block messages	Custom edit filter messages
Desktop (IP)	Orange bar of doom	No	Yes	Yes
Desktop (User)	Miniature orange bar of doom	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mobile Web (IP)	No	No	Yes	Yes
Mobile Web (User)	Looks like other alerts	Yes	Yes	Yes
iOS (IP)	No (?)	No	?	Broken; only message name shown (?)
iOS (User)	No	No	No	Broken; only message name shown
Android (IP)	No	No	Seems flaky	No (?)
Android (User)	Yes (w/ ding+vibrate)	Yes (w/ ding+vibrate)	No	No

So the one way we have to reach this user is to create a page called MediaWiki:We want to talk to you! Follow these steps to reach your talk page: Go to "settings" and tap blah blah blah... and set it as a the warning message of an edit filter that targets this user, and only this user. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

We could generalize that to an extent. Create some sort of edit filter for "alert iOS user to check their talk page for a discussion concerning them" and apply it as necessary to catch the attention of iOS users when needed. Then create some sort of system or procedure for when to apply it, with appropriate requirements (ie. there's an active discussion, such as ANI, that requires alerting the user and there's no indication they ever receive talk page messages.) Obviously it's a crude hack, but it's better than nothing - who knows when or if this issue will be fixed? We need some way to attract the attention of iOS-only users. --Aquillion (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Would it be desirable to hold a big RfC where the community asks Arbcom to ask the WMF Board to address the issue? At least we could find out if they know about it, and whether they care, and whether they would commit resources to solving the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the last 100 edits from iOS app users go back about 5 hours. By comparison the last 100 edits from mobile web IP users go back about 15 minutes. So I wouldn't want to focus on just the iOS issue; if this route is taken we should be demand that all the mobile editing interfaces be fixed or disabled.

For now I think we should just keep commenting at WP:VPWMF#What we've got here is failure to communicate (some mobile editors you just can't reach) so it never gets archived; the lack of any edits to that thread from a (WMF) account is growing more and more conspicuous. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No WMF Board member will read that discussion (unless dragged to it). WMF staffers are irrelevant as history has shown they have to do what their managers direct, and they are presumably encouraged by the Board to focus on shiny new things (or hopelessly naive attempts to "engage" new editors—using an app where they cannot communicate!). Thank you for your efforts clarifying how this works but enwiki discussions will achieve nothing. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

What a sorry situation. In any case, I've started expanding the table at User:Suffusion_of_Yellow/Mobile communication bugs, but I'm still not finished. IIRC they can't see edit notices either! Feel free to fill in any missing parts.

I'm beginning to warm to the idea of using an edit filter to disable app editing entirely (and maybe logged out mobile web editing, too). As Levivich suggested, just the threat that we might do that would probably encourage swift action, and the filter wouldn't actually ever be turned on. But we'd need a very carefully worded RFC to get community support for this. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Suffusion of Yellow, thanks for that list. Useful to see all the options mostly checked. In particular, the Android app stuff isn't something I've seen mentioned before now and confirms my suspicion that the Android is different from iOS.

Quite a few months ago in June or something, I wanted to check mobile site behaviour since I'd read about the message problem, but never checked it. I confirmed that messages for IPs with the desktop site still worked fine, with the orange box of death. And well I already knew how both the mobile and desktop site works with my own account. But that without an account, there was no sign of new messages for IPs, unless you knew to check your talk page. I thought I also checked the Android app for both IPs and accounts and found similar behaviour to the mobile site. (IIRC, I didn't check blocks, edit filters or other notifications. Although I did check blocks for IPs quite recently on mobile + desktop but not on Android.)

But then when the iOS mess first came to one of the ANs, one of the bugs reports seemed to suggest Android users were also affected. Plus I was surprised that the Android and iOS apps would be different, I thought most developers share big parts of their code base for mobile apps nowadays. So I was confused about my memory but since it wasn't really an issue, no one was discussing what to do about any Android app user I let it be. I'm pleased to see that my memory was probably right and I did find that Android editors with accounts were notified of new messages but IPs weren't. IIRC the UI is slightly different depending on whether your logged in.

To be fair to the WMF, while there's no excuse for the lack of notifications etc, now that I think about it I'm not so surprised the iOS and Android apps are fairly different and it may not be the WMF being silly. On iOS I assume the app is forced to use Webkit etc as all apps are. With Android, not sure what the app does but it could be they even use their "own" (well probably just unmodified Blink but provided by their app) rendering engine since they can, unlike with Apple's my way or the highway system).

I assume this isn't one problem with the notifications since the WMF would have said something by now, but who knows I guess given Apple's restrictions and the WMF's notorious poor communication at times. For clarity, I mean something like "Your app can receive message, how do you moderate these? What's your moderation policy?" "Our communities generally do that themselves, we reserve the right to step in if necessary but only really do so for smaller ones. And you can see our ToU, we don't have any sort of universal code of conduct." "Yeah no, that's not good enough." "Look we're trying to make a UCoC, but it isn't going well. And if we step in more easily, there will be civil war. Look what happened when we tried that time!" "We're Apple, do you think we GAF? Our users do what we say they should, and like it; whether it's avoiding perfectly compliant USB-C devices because they're not Apple approved so may cause our products to fail, or only using the apps we allow them to on products they completely own. Yours should too!" "(WMF speaking internally) Hey you know that UCoC we're having trouble with? I have the perfect solution.....

Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've been looking onto this for a moment here, this looks on its face like classic WP:RADAR behavior. I noted they have a user page, suggesting they do in fact know that exists, but oddly, their userpage was created by Toyotaboy13, who also never, ever, not even once ever communicated with another user in any way and was repeatedly warned for adding unsourced content. I think this suggests they are the same user, although Toyotaboy went quiet in September 2019. This in turn suggests that this person has been editing Wikipedia for five years without ever speaking to another user. I find it difficult to believe that software is the one and only issue here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  Possibly. But at the time when Toyotaboy13 was last active they were using an Android device, while Wilkja19 was using an iOS device. There's some obvious overlap in the articles edited though; more likely these are two users who know each other, and one learned the bad habits from the other. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  An equally likely explanation is another user clicked the red link and created their user page (as commonly happens) and this user didn’t notice (afaics, there’s no link to ones user page in the app; none, unlike the talk page link which at least exists but is buried in the settings), hence didn’t request U1 deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

So the question is what to do about this editor. As this discussion has been ongoing, they have continued to make edits falsely marked as minor, without edit summaries and without sources. Their editing is disruptive, and nothing about the iOS app compels them to edit in this way or prevents them from understanding how to edit collaboratively. The only thing it does is make it possible that the user does not know they have received messages requesting them to change their behaviour.

They are clearly not going to stop editing disruptively unless something is done. Doing nothing would mean that by never communicating, they have gained an exemption from normal community standards. So I advocate blocking them until they communicate with the community. Andesitic (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The stronger consensus here is that you should stop reverting them at least while the community figures out what to do about this issue. Yet you have continued. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I see no such consensus, and I find your aggressive defence of this editor very strange. I will note the similarity of this case to another below where a block is being considered, and a recent case where a block was applied. Andesitic (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Andesitic, you've got an increasingly serious WP:IDHT problem of your own [123], and I see a WP:BOOMERANG headed your way if you don't stop obsessing about this one editor and start attending to improving your own understanding of project policies and guidelines and community norms. If you're smart you'll be quiet now while experienced discuss how to address this general problem. EEng 04:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have no comment on the merit of this report but just wanted to note I blocked Andesitic for long-term abuse (best known for IP again). Sro23 (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Surprise! EEng 18:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

English versus British, and violations of no original research

• 2A01:E34:EC61:2680:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• David Pahrohahro (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Somebody using IPs from France has been changing a ton of music articles to say the artist is English rather than British. For instance, we have Estelle (musician) who is considered British, but the France IP person insists she is English.[124][125] Then there's the fictional cartoon band Gorillaz which is somehow English rather than British.[126] Many more examples of this can be shown.

This person also adds very extensive analysis to Miles Davis albums, citing no source because the analysis cannot be found in published sources. These are clear violations of WP:No original research. For instance, they wrote that the song "What If" was later re-edited and released as "One And One", citing no reference. This person frequently includes the fact that Miles played his trumpet through a Harmon mute or a wah-wah pedal which is true in each case, but is never listed along with his trumpet as being equally important. And the strange term "electric trumpet"[127] is completely original. Nobody ever writes about Miles playing electric trumpet, which is something Miles did not live to see (in the form of a MIDI wind controller.)

In response to me reverting the IP, a new username popped up to revert my reversions: David Pahrohahro. I don't know if they are the same person from France, or just someone with an axe to grind, but they have been following all of my recent edits and reverting them. They categorized themselves on their userpage as an administrator.[128] What is the next step? Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, David ... is an LTA sock. Pahunkat (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The IP range is still on the table. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Account blocked. Will report to SPI for a CU sleeper check. I don't see a mention of geolocaiton on that SPI so I'll take no action at the moment on it. Other admins are welcome to. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, the geolocation is pretty off here, and this does not appear to be a proxy. Whether it should be blocked for disruptive editing is a different question. Blablubbs|talk 18:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It's been an 'achille's heal', that Wikipedia goes along with using English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish/Irish, as opposed to British, with such bios/non-bios of British articles :( GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

"Reach out and touch the screen, folks!" Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

We should stop using nationality, ethnicity, or race in British articles and instead only use citizenship. That way we'd sidestep the issue. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What's the adjective form, though, for someone from the United Kingdom (like German for someone from Germany, or American for someone from the US, or Dutch for someone from the Netherlands)? Not British, and I'm not aware of anything like "United Kingdomian." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

And walk right into a crunching blindside tackle. Half the population of Northern Ireland identifies as British and half as Irish. Many hold, and all are entitled to hold, both Irish and UK citizenship. I identify as English, but could easily secure Irish citizenship; it would just be paperwork. There is no simplistic answer. Narky Blert (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And the other half as Northern Irish :). I have a tendency, as others do, for people from Northern Ireland to not put in any nationality or citizenship and purely say "from Northern Ireland." I honestly don't believe we should make any assumptions on anyone's nationality, UK resident or not, on any articles unless we have a specific reference stating they're an X citizen etc. Just use what country they're from. Canterbury Tail talk 15:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I can safely say that identifying Irish people as "British" would be spectacularly bad idea (as well, of course, as being factually untrue). Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Safer than calling them English, though. Narky Blert (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors seem to have an obsession with including a person's national identity in the opening sentence of an article, interpreting "most" in MOS:CONTEXTBIO as "all". If we don't have near-unanimous agreement among reliable sources then we should simply leave it out, explaining it in the body of an article if it needs any explanation. I, for one, can be either British or English depending on the context (and I had two grandparents born in England, one in Scotland and one in Australia), and some of my close family members have more than one citizenship, but, even if they became notable, I doubt whether their citizenships would become public knowledge reported by reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, with a slight tweak. Such information is worthless unless it adds valuable context to the article (which in modern times usually means public self-identification). I've seen articles in which people were (or are) asserted to be citizens of countries which did not exist in their lifetimes (or do not yet exist and may never do); inexcusable WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Osomite violations of WP:NPA

In this edit, during an editoria dispute of Talk:Operation Sea Lion Osomite called me an "apologist". From the context, I infer that he meant a "Nazi apologist", since he also referred to my "prodigious efforts to maintain Nazi victory in Poland."

At first I waved this off, but it then began to bother me, so I requested that he retract both defamatory statements. [129]

Osomite's response was to first tag me with an unwarranted edit-warring warning related to the dispute, and then to post a non-apology apology, in which he apologized for my feelings, and not for his statements. [130] In any case, I did not ask for, and do not want an apology, I asked for him to retract his statements. When I told him that [131], he blew me off and told me to report him, which I am doing.

I put prodigious effort into protecting Wikipedia from neo-Nazis et al. who try to alter facts or whitewash articles, and I do not appreciate being called an "apologist" for the Nazi invasion of Poland, simply because I stand by the historical record that the invasion was successful. "Successful" is not a measure of approval, it's simply a matter of which side won the battle in question. About this there can be no doubt: the Nazi invasion of Poland was successful.

I would like an admin to take a look at the situation and issue a warning -- at least -- to Osomite not to violate WP:NPA and to ask them to retract their defamatory statements about me by striking them through, as I requested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Beyond My Ken! To be fair, I took Osomite's statement, "I did not say you were a Nazi apologist. I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize." as a sufficient apology, but I understand if you wish for the user to strike those personal attacks. Osomite, can you please do that so that the discussion can move on and be constructive and on-topic regarding the article? :-) Also, please don't make personal attacks at other users like that. A founding principle of Wikipedia is that we treat others with respect, and making personal attacks directly conflicts with that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Except that I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize is NOT an apology at all, since it's all about what the target is alleged to feel and not what the supposed apologizer has done. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I was also involved and the entire incident was a bizarre attempt to claim Poland was not defeated, which is odd, to say the least. The attack on Ken are unacceptable and (at the very least) Osomite should strike them and apologize. I tried to accommodate them. I get the feeling this may not be over. Their (belated, they replied after I had assumed it was over as Ken had added sources to the claim they were contesting) talk page comments smack of wp:nothere and wp:Ididnothearthat. I now feel like I did Ken a disservice by trying to get a civil discourse and trying to address Osomite's concerns. It seems to me this was all just A POV pusher trying to force their version of nationalist history onto the article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've found several of User:Osomite's comments as attempting to personalise the dispute and / or downright insulting, such as:

1. I am a little behind on your prodigious efforts to maintain Nazi victory in Poland.
2. better late than not to put my thoughts about your activity on record.
3. You are disingenuous.
4. Your argument is largely that of an apologist. Claiming that "That it did not last in perpetuity is irrelevant." is nonsense, and you probably realize that.
5. In re: sources that BMK added: Conveniently they are in books that will be difficult to view and verify that you have been honest in these assertions., implying that BMK is a potential lier to boot.

Permalink: [132]. The implication of 1 & 4 combined is clearly pointing towards Nazi apologist, so BMK was right to take offense. A non-apology 'apology' generally does not resolve anything. Here's what was offered by User:Osomite: I did not say you were a Nazi apologist. I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize.. It's odd that this comment was given an edit summary of "apology to Beyond My Ken".

I would recommend a strong word of caution, if not a warning against personalising disputes and attacking other editors on article Talk pages. Given that no actual apology has been offered so far, a short block may be in order as an alternate outcome. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, they are not apologizing for saying ken is an apologist, just that he is sorry for saying he is a Nazi one. Moreover I note "a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial", so he still thinks he is in the right and Ken is on the wrong over the "controversy" (he is yet to show there is one, outside of his opinions) over whether or not Germans was successful. With an added "It seemed to me that Germany's successful invasion of Poland was a Nazi victory." I agree this is not a genuine apology by an ANI complaint one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Its pretty clear from the context that Osomite isn't remotely sorry about his blatant personal attacks. Despite Osomites denial, its very difficult to consider than he called BMK anything but a Nazi apologist. Its pretty clear by any reasonable standard that the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland was a victory in the early stages of the war, and describing people as "apologists" for supporting that is massively uncalled for. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• My thanks to those who have posted here to support my position: I appreciate your taking the time to do so.
  I want to point out that in the 12 hours since Oshwah made the comment above, urging Osomite to retract their statements, Osomite has yet to do so. They have, however, made six trivial edits to one of their user pages, deleting old sections, which I take as being a rather ostentatious display of ignoring this complaint and the advice from an admin. I would like to suggest that such studied disregard of the call for a simple retraction of what are -- the consensus here agrees -- personal attacks is not the sign of someone who is prepared to behave in a civil manner -- in fact, quite the opposite. I ask that further administrative action be considered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• My ping above didn't work, so... Oshwah, please see my previous comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Osomite - Why won't you strike the comments as requested so that we can move on? I really don't want to be the "admin bad guy" here, but a block is going to be considered if you don't do this... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah: Thanks, but I don't believe that Osomite is going to do anything. They continue to edit their sub-page User:Osomite/Stuff while ignoring this discussion and my requests. Slatersteven posted a comment on their talk page saying they really should come to this discussion, [133] and Osomite's responses was to add links to that sub-page so that they could "check out" Slatersteven. [134]

Because of the lack of response or action from Osomite, I have myself redacted their personal attacks from their comments on Talk:Operation Sealion [135], and have e-mailed Oversight asking that they be rev-del'd or oversighted, whichever is appropriate. Assuming that this request is accepted, I guess that the incident is over, except, of course, that Osomite will have escaped without being sanctioned for their continuing uncollegial behavior. Thanks for your assistance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow that's... weird. And almost stalkerish. — Czello 20:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I read it as an indication that Osomite is rather unwilling to work and play well with others. I would note that there was some more explicitly "opposition research" information on that sub-page about me, which I deleted per WP:POLEMIC. [136]. The stuff about Slatersteven was more innocuous, so I didn't think it qualified for deletion, but I suspect they had the same purpose in mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Response from Osomite

@Slatersteven: I appreciate your concern. Thank you. I find this issue very distressing. Sadly it was the last thing I thought about while trying to fall asleep last night (actually at 3 AM) as this dilemma has been weighing on my mind. I do not call people Nazi apologists. I have not called people Nazi apologists. Beyond My Ken through inference (BMK's word) says I did.

Slatersteven, after you made your proposal to me to remove my comments, I thought it was appropriate and was figuring out how to do what you suggested and best seek resolution. Yes, I was silent, the reason was that I wanted to give time to let things cool down. I was upset by the proceedings and want to be able to respond calmly. I was silent, but I was listening. I am distressed that my silence was construed as nefarious. Sometimes a silence is just a silence. I was just listening and thinking. What was the apparent need for urgency? You mentioned that I was "a POV pusher trying to force their version of nationalist history onto the article". Where did that come from? I have no alternate version of history to force. It is very interesting what some people consider the meaning of silence is.

This issue initiated around my "edit" (I apologize for the "scare quotes", but I can't get the dif rename done without them) of the following sentence in the Operation_Sea_Lion article in the section "Invasion of Poland":

In September 1939, the German invasion of Poland was a success, but this infringed on both a French and a British alliance with Poland and both countries declared war on Germany.

My purpose was to edit a poorly constructed sentence and clarify. With the result of:

In September 1939, German invaded Poland. This aggression infringed on a French alliance with Poland and a British alliance with Poland. Subsequently, France and Britain declared war on Germany.

(Oops, I see that I created a typo "German" instead of "Germany".) So I reconstructed a sentence that had a comma splice and unusual conjunction "but". I edited it to make it three sentences. Making the entry more informative and clear was my object. And then I was left with the first sentence where using the word "successful" felt awkward. I have never considered the invasion of Poland "unsuccessful" (as some here have somehow construed). An invasion is either an invasion or a "failed invasion". And I have never seen the use of "successful" relative to "invasion" anywhere. Seeing that accolade in an encyclopedia article did not seem to have a neutral point of view NPOV. So I did not think that using the "successful" necessary. Removing the word "success" or "successful" does not change the meaning of the sentence. I had no hidden agenda with doing this. I had no agenda. I was trying to write the best encyclopedia article I could by removing a word that was unnecessary. After all, was an invasion and the invasion did what an invasion does. And in the edit summary, I indicated, "There is no support for the claim that the invasion of Poland was "successful". And from there BMK disagreed and reverted the entire edit. BMK ignored my edit of the second sentence which was a marked improvement over the original.

Here is an observation. In the Invasion of Poland Wikipedia article, the word "success", relative to the overall invasion, was used once, stating "The success of the invasion marked the end of the Second Polish Republic, though Poland never formally surrendered." Here as with the Operation Sea Lion article, the word "success" is an unnecessary adjective. If the word "success" is removed, the meaning of the sentence is not altered.

The encyclopedia Britannica, when discussing what caused WWII, it simply states, "World War II began in Europe on September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland." Here is a creditable encyclopedia that does not feel the need for touting the invasion as "successful".

Through all of this, I have pondered about "what was Hitler's goal in invading Poland?" What would have been Hitler's criteria to consider the invasion successful? Clearly, Hitler desired to expand eastward to gain “lebensraum” (living space) for Germans. Did the invasion accomplish this goal? Another thought was that Hitler needed to possess Poland in order to launch his offensive against Russia. Yes, the invasion was successful in Germany "possessing" Poland for this purpose. If it is this apparent, why couldn't BMK simply qualify the condition of success? Maybe BMK could have added another sentence or two?

Recently, I read somewhere that with Germany's invasion of Poland and when the Allied Forces entered into WWII against Germany, at that point Germany had already realized that they had lost the war. With that view, it seems a stretch to say the invasion spawned a "success". I guess I need to find that again because there will undoubtedly be contention about this assertion. In any case, this line of inquiry is interesting and needs to be examined.

For some reason, Beyond My Ken has called me "the editor" throughout this entire episode. This is a personal slight, I consider BMK to be rude. There is some psychology involved with not acknowledging a person with their name. To not acknowledge someone is a snub. It can mean to ignore or not take notice of.

For some reason, from BMK's first revert of my initial edit, BMK made no effort to collaborate with me. He has only been brusk, offensive, and threatening. I made a single revert and BMK put the edit war Ambox warning on my talk page accusing "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Operation Sea Lion;" And then in an additional entry on my talk page threatened, "Your next revert to this article triggers a report to the edit warring notice board". OMG! I made a single revert at 10:35 and a second edit (retaining the word "successful" and BMK's response was to threaten me. Although in the edit war notice it counseled "Users are expected to collaborate with others", BMK never sought to collaborate with me. I highly doubt that BMK's behavior reflected an appropriate protocol.

Throughout many edit exchanges with editors, BMK has been determined to retain the exact original badly constructed sentence with simply the addition of four references supporting specifically for the single word "successful" in the context of "In September 1939, the successful German invasion of Poland". The placement of the references is unusual; they are placed immediately after the word " ". BMK's "edit" (Again, apologies for the "scare quotes") establishes that the references are specifically for just the word "successful", remarking in the edit summary "This is the way it must be done."

I appreciate that BMK has provided references specifically for the word "successful". I plan to track down the books to see whether there is actually a clear statement or analysis stating that the invasion was "successful". After I have been able to do find the books (they are at my libraries) and do the research, I was will report my results. If I am wrong, I will admit that I am wrong with appropriate apologies to BMK. I value truth and I value an honest presentation of history.

I see from the discussions, things have not cooled off. Beyond My Ken has been quite busy prosecuting his case. Is that appropriate? Today, BMK has "redacted what he considers to be personal attacks" in my post on the Operation Sea Lion Talk page. Was that appropriate? It seems that BMK is doing his best to add heat and stir the pot. From this situation, am I going to received fair consideration?

My posts concerned were in reply to "BLM post" (apologies for the "scare quotes") which was initiated immediately after I made "my first and only revert" (apologies for the "scare quotes").

BMK considers the following phrases to be personal attacks. Just to provide a perspective they were not grouped but spread in my post to BMK

• "to maintain Nazi victory in Poland"

• 4 lines of text follows

• "You are disingenuous."

• 10 lines of text follows

• "Your argument is largely that of an apologist."

I am truly sorry that BMK inferred (BMK's word) that a word in the first phrase and a word in the third phrase was a personal attack of being called a "Nazi apologist". I am sorry he saw it that way. It was in no way intended to be a personal attack that I had "cleverly hidden". I did make an apology which was heartfelt ("I did not say you were a Nazi apologist. I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize."). However, somehow I did not say whatever magical words BMK thought appropriate and called it a "nonapology apology". Some here have the view that I did not make a "not a genuine apology". Is there some guidance on how to make a genuine apology?

About "apologist". Some who are judging here, consider that because I rebuffed BMK's "success" argument by saying it was "largely that of an apologist" is a personal attack. An apologist is "one who speaks or writes in defense of something". What is wrong with that? That is what BMK did. I did not find BMK's argument convincing.

And about personal attacks. "BMK's reply to me" (apologies for the "scare quotes") contains some significant personal attacks on me:

"I won't take it seriously, because you're so far off the mark that you're entirely around the bend. Ignoring your ignorant personal jibes, the issue here is simple: reliable sources, and every historian worth their salt, says that the German invasion of Poland was a successful one."

BMK tells me, "I am entirely around the bend", calls me "ignorant", and then just claims the authority of historians "worth their salt". That wasn't much of an argument, it was, to me, what you would expect from an apologist who has few facts at hand. It was an insult to me. BMK claims I made a personal attack, which is ironic when BMK freely makes personal attacks; they were personal attacks that were so clear there was no inference needed to understand what they were. I would appreciate BMK's apology for his personal attack on me.

BMK's posts contain quite a bit of disparagement directed towards me; a lot of anger. The tone was arrogant and overbearing. BMK was presenting what BMK considered to be superior knowledge and was quite annoyed at being challenged. BMK took some particularly umbrage with my challenge requesting a reference for the adjective "successful". It seemed to me that BMK was looking for reasons to have controversy and conflict.

About "disingenuous". Here is "my post" and here is the comment in context which was concerned his aspersion that I was edit warring although I only made a single revert:

"You are disingenuous. You were in an edit war earlier this month from which you received a edit block of one month. You contested the block and received mercy. You ended the episode by claiming, "I'll try my best to improve". You need to work on that claim, walk the talk."

It is apparent, and BMK's editing history involving his past edit wars demonstrates it, that BMK is not candid or sincere and is in fact quite disingenuous. He claimed an edit war after I made a single revert, which is disingenuous. BMK would prefer to distract and misdirect and call it a personal attack; however, it is not, it is simply an observation of fact. This is not BMK's first rodeo.

Many words have been written here with many analyses of my words. In a lot of ways, I see this as much in the way of John Godfrey Saxe's poem [The Blind Men and the Elephant] which ends:

"So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween, tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean, and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen!"

I hope for an honest opinion of the elephant.

Clearly the judges are self-selecting themselves. Can the judges act without bias and fairness?

I feel that the judges have been looking at this episode cherry-picking words, touching only the parts of the elephant that are easily at hand, and making assumptions based upon, probably, a predetermined result. You assume you know all about me and have already passed judgment. You layer assumption upon assumption. You suppose. You guess. You infer.

I feel that I will not find fair judgment here. I wonder that when making your judgments, has all of the record in the posts been reviewed and given equal weight? With BMK making on-going "comments" (again apologies for the "scare quotes") and whipping up the prosecution I feel an unfair finger on the scale.

I have a suspicion that what I have written here is just going to provide more "grist for the mill" with more criticism of what you think I really said and more condemnation.

As you judge me, do you consider Beyond My Ken blameless? Shouldn't his involvement be considered?

I have not challenged anyone's specific already stated determinations. Doing that would probably not change any opinion. I have not addressed every detail. If anyone has a specific question they would like me to address, please let me know.

Osomite ^hablemos 04:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have not thoroughly read the wall-of-text above, but I have skimmed it, and on the surface it appears to be a venture in WP:Wikilawyering. However, Osomite is correct that my posting "around the bend" was inappropriate, and I have now retracted that by striking it through. I will not withdraw "ignorant", because their comment was indeed completely oblivious to the thrust of my editing career in regard to Nazism, Fascism, neo-Nazism and neo-Fascism etc., just as their synopsis above is ignorant of what I do and have done in general, and, I believe, of my character. - they clearly have drawn their conclusions from a quick scan of my current talk page. I also note that Osomite has chosen to double-down on my being "disingenuous", which, of course, is simply polite-speak for "liar". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

BMK, you should read it carefully, and in general just stop making ANI your playground. Be nicer and be here less often, in all respects, please. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think if you read the comments above and on Talk:Operation Sealion, you'd find that a number of independent editors -- in fact, all of them who have commented -- have agreed that Osomite's remarks contained personal attacks, which they have refused to retract. That would seem to justify a remark to Osomite to be nicer, not to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say neither user displayed conspicuous politeness here. But I think the problem was Osomite's refusal to retract and attempts to justify why they were right, not the PA's themselves. Osomite you need to wholly accept you are wrong about what you said about BMK, that is was unacceptable. Not with a wall of text but just "I get what I said was wrong and I unreservedly apologize", one line is all it needs. BMK, your decision to remove the offending posts now means that Osomite cannot now choose to remove them, thus is unable to show they get it. I think we need to draw a line under this. Osomite, Wikipedia works by referencing wp:rs (you were technically correct, as I said at the time). But it also operates on a wp:or principle, as well as wp:bluesky. As many users told you Poland lost (thus the Germans invasion was a success) by any meaningful criteria. You failed to provide any RS backing your contention it was not a success, and thus waste time on a matter that should have been dropped. Even after sources were provided you still argued the toss it was not so. For me therefore there are issues here that go beyond the PA's (which may have been a language issue). You need to show that you will not try to push OR again, against consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"BMK, your decision to remove the offending posts now means that Osomite cannot now choose to remove them, thus is unable to show they get it." That is not the case, at least at the moment. All they would have to do is revert my redacting edit and strikeout the offending remarks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

A Briefer Response From Osomite

Slatersteven advised me that it would be more helpful to have condensed my responses into one or two paragraphs.

@Slatersteven: Yes less is more. Good thought. I have never been involved in a personal attack accusation and I had no guidance to follow so I did what I thought appropriate. Ironic, there was much ado about my prolonged silence, and now you want brevity. I was told to reply and that it was serious. I figured if it was serious, I would take it seriously and reply appropriately. I figured I had one opportunity to respond, so I made an effort to put it into perspective. What could I have explained in a paragraph or two? What is the critical issue? The critical defense?

You make a good point, so here is a try at brevity. A focused defense. (Hmm, and after writing the "brief", it is more than a paragraph or two. I did it with as few words as I could)

I have been accused by "inference" that I called Beyond My Ken (BMK) a Nazi Apologist. I did not. "Inference" is "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning." What is the evidence?

In my first post to the conversation, having spent some time carefully crafting it, I discovered when I tried to post I got an edit conflict as Slatersteven and BMK had posted several times while I composed, and I was behind. So I revised the post I was working on to place my somewhat belated comments in context. I "prefaced" with the comment, "I am a little behind on your prodigious efforts to maintain Nazi victory in Poland." I used the words "Nazi" and "victory" as they were prominently used in the back and forth posts between Slaterstevenu and BMK. I picked up on the theme. The words "Nazi attack" in my post were simply an "echoing" of the ideas being discussed. An echo nothing more.

The words "Nazi attack" would not be the ones I would use concerning the issue of "successful invasion". "Nazi attack" was not my original thought about the situation. BMK created the discussion section on the Operation Sea Lion talk page and titled it, "Was the Nazi invasion of Poland a success?" The original use of the word "Nazi" in the discussion done BMK.

Further down in the post, the part that I had tried to post but could not due to an edit conflict situation, I rebutted BMK's argument as being that of an apologist. An apologist, and nothing more. (See my previous post about "apologist", it is just a word to characterize a type of argument).

BMK, who clearly by the talk page discussion, at this point was very annoyed because I challenge the word "successful" and wanted a reference for that conclusion. So BMK, while annoyed (perhaps to the point of anger), read my post and wanted to reply. BMK created out of hole-cloth an imagined insult, a personal attack, because I used the word "Nazi" and "apologist" in the same post. Post hoc ergo propter hocer inferring, BMK decided that I said BMK was a "Nazi apologist". That is not true. I did not infer that, BMK inferred that.

To say that I made a personal attack is not true, I had no intent. I did not call BMK a "Nazi apologist". When I saw BMK's post back to me, I thought, "Oh Dear, where did that come from?" I immediately replied with an apology. Sadly BMK did not think it was not sufficient calling it a "nonapology apology". I am sorry that my apology did not satisfy BMK. At this point, I indicated I was no longer willing to engage (considering BMK's emotional state and imaginings). So I "went silent", which many here thought was a very suspicious thing to do. Note in my post, I said that was what I was intended to do. I invoked Godwin's law. And, I was condemned because I was not replying immediately. My speed of thought and action, unfortunately, does not match others in the Wikipedia world.

BMK made a personal attack incident report. And here we are, with me defending myself from an "inferred" personal attack. I have been accused of doing something I did not do by "inference". Is inference adequate proof to make it fact? About this inference, I believe that I should be allowed the "benefit of the doubt".

Osomite ^hablemos 20:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Osomite, what you wrote is not brief. I will be brief. The Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 was a miltary success. Period. End of story. The way you spoke to BMK was offensive and out of line. Period. You should make an unambiguous apology and behave better in the future. That's it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

And can you explain this [[137]], which seems to be using your user page for promotion of a company that makes paid contributions to Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Osomite's reply was given here. Fences&Windows 01:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the fact that Osomite feels it's appropriate to respond to such a serious question by burying the reply in a sub-page of his userspace speaks volumes. Beyond the fact Osomite is using the page as some sort of random WP:WEBHOST for whatever catches their interest, they seems to think that because Slatersteven found this company mention on the subpage that, somehow, it means Slatersteven must be watching the page for a reply there... rather than sensibly posting a reply here or on a Talk page. I'm not sure if WP:CIR or WP:TEND applies more. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

To be fair they also posted it to my talk page [[138]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And we have this [[139]], so it's clear they still do not get it. So much for their applogy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Followed by this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

State of play

So, it's been 10 days since Osomite posted this on Talk:Operation Sealion, which a number of editors here and there have agreed contained personal attacks. I asked for a retraction, and received what I -- and several other editors -- think is a "non-apology apology", but no retraction. Osomite posted two responses here, one of which doubled down by calling me "disingenuous", which means a liar. Several admins have, in this thread, counseled Osomite to retract, but Osomite has refused to do so, though they continue to be active, editing their user pages. I eventually redacted the PAs myself, but would still prefer Osomite to retract them. I don't care about or want an apology, I want the person who insulted and attacked me to take back their attacking words. The two edits cited just above by Slatersteven and myself indicate that Osomite is not interested in doing this.

Is there a sanction of some sort in Osomite's future, for attacking another editor and refusing to retract the attack, or should I file a request for closure, on the assumption that no admin is interested in sanctioning Osomite? Oshwah, Cullen328, you've both commented here, do either of you have any interest in further action? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I am very concerned about Osomite's behavior but am not inclined to take any action at this moment. However, if Osomite engages in further misbehavior along these lines, I will act swiftly. Feel free to ping me at any time, Beyond My Ken. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User Störm

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Störm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also raised above at WP:ANI#AfD nominator closing own discussions

I don't like bringing editors to ANI, but in this case I feel it necessary. Last night, I was checking CAT:AFD/U when I noticed that a number of articles about cricketers were being nominated. An example of this is the Waheed Iqbal article. This article is fully referenced, and there are no BLP issues. Other nominated articles that I looked at were in a similar condition. The article was nominated for deletion with the rationale "Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found" despite it having four references. All were being nominated by Störm.

Initially, I warned Störm to stop nominating cricketers at AfD. He agreed not to nominate any more and I suggested that we see how those AfDs already running panned out so that we could assess whether or not my concerns re the nominations were valid. I also raised the issue at WT:CRICKET. Störm then started closing AfD discussions that he had started, such as this one, which Rugbyfan22 raised at Störm's talk page. Discussion at WT:CRICKET#AfD nominations of cricketers revealed that Lugnuts had raised the issue previously with Störm. A look at Störm's talk page history confirms this. Bobo192 raised the issue of these AfDs having the effect of driving away editors at WT:CRICKET, a sentiment I agree with.

To prevent further disruption to the project, I therefore propose that Störm is banned from nominating any article about a cricketer for deletion for a period of six months, and is also permanently formally banned from closing any AfD discussion that he has started. Störm may participate in AfD discussions not started by him. During the ban period, Störm is encouraged to study AfDs in the subject area he is interested in and learns from nominations that fail or succeed, leading to an improvement when he returns to nominating articles at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Storm has been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, this was quick considering our agreement that we will wait and see. Your WP:ANI shows your shallow view of the issue at hand (Waheed Iqbal, the prime example you quoted above of my incompetence is sourced entirely with cricket statistic and database websites Cricinfo and CricketArchive which we can use for WP:V but they are not WP:RS and you should take note here. Also, go and read RfC on NCRIC and other related discussions). For your information (Mjroots), I am an active member of WP:CRIC since I joined in 2015 and have created and improved hundreds of articles for the project. I am also nominating cricket-related articles for deletion since long (because I believe in quality rather than quantity and in my view sportspeople bios have overwhelmed the WPs categories because of too-inclusive subjects-specific guidelines) and most of them result in delete or redirect (an admin here may check my last six months AfD record). Störm (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Störm: - Had you not started improperly closing AfDs you created, we probably wouldn't have been here. It is extremely rare for me to start a discussion here, as regulars will confirm. I'm not here to get you blocked or anything like that, but I do feel that this issue does need to be looked at properly. If consensus is that you do not need to be stopped from nominating articles at AfD, then I will accept that. Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reply and Question: Mjroots, above you state: If consensus is that you do not need to be stopped from nominating articles at AfD, then I will accept that.. There does not have to be a consensus to not sanction an editor, there needs to be a consensus to sanction an editor and the consensus needs to be supported by a valid reason, which is preventive, not punitive.

Question: what exactly are you trying to prevent Störm from doing at this point?  // Timothy :: talk  18:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• @TimothyBlue: Yes, I could have phrased that better. I wasn't looking to "punish" Störm, as I have made clear on his talk page. Situation turns out not to have been as serious as it first seemed. Nominations are mostly good, it was just the volume of them that was causing an issue. As Störm has voluntarily decided to stop nominating for now, and appreciates the concerns raised re number of nominations at a time, I don't think there's anything more to do here. I'm sure that if Störm does start nominating again, he will be mindful of this and keep the number of articles nominated at a time down to a more managable quantity. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, Thank you, I'm very glad this is working out without any sanction; I know you clearly didn't want to come here for this.  // Timothy :: talk  19:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, I agree with what people have said here regarding my mass nominations. I commit that I will not mass nominate articles in the future and try to limit myself to a reasonable number, say five. Störm (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I know you did this in good faith, but I feel you should have waited and looked at the issue of WP:NCRIC. I accept that some of my nominations were bad and I have made a spate of nominations that I feel I should have avoided. Feedback and outcome here will help me decide my future (if most of admins feel I should be banned then I will leave this place voluntarily). Störm (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• While the articles give the impression of sourcing, they are generally nothing more than statistics and scorecards in a wide-ranging database, so they certainly don't meet the level of SIGCOV or SPORTCRIT. It is also clear that the wider community regards the low bar criteria of many NSPORT guidelines, and specifically NCRIC, as overly permissive, and GNG should be the bar. As such, I have no technical issues with the nominations, however the volume is a huge problem. A 2017 RFC specifically stated it was not an invitation to flood AFD, and that sentiment shouldn't be any different now. There is consensus for alternatives to deletion (e.g. merge/redirect), but it seems (especially from the early closes) that Störm hasn't looked into these before nominating despite have been asked directly. On the odd occasion, it also seems questionable that a reasonably thorough WP:BEFORE has been done. Cricket project members have tried hard to participate in these discussions but this is something like the fourth or fifth wave of nominations now and as Bobo said, it simply becomes too much for some. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  To add to my earlier comment: While the volume of nominations presents an issue and a would support limiting the number of concurrent nominations listed at Delsort/Cricket, the outright disregard for significant or substantial coverage in factory producing these stubs is probably a bigger problem, with any reasonable level of AFD nominations unable to keep pace with creations – it should be noted that the vast majority of Störm's nominations have resulted in delete/merge/redirect. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, I have no problems with the rationale for the majority of the AfD's that Störm has done. A large majority of them don't have coverage that qualifies them for WP:GNG although common sense on some of them when players have played multiple games should be used. Like Wjemather though I am concerned about the large number of articles that are AfD. I similarly put through a number of rugby union articles at once and was told that it wasn't the correct process and haven't done it again, yet it's almost a daily splurge of AfD's that are difficult to keep up with, especially for members of WP:CRIC, who I am sure have grown tired of not having to comment on every one that comes through, especially with the effort that users like Bobo and Lugnuts have gone to in creating articles in the past. With no consensus on updating WP:NCRIC in a recent discussion also, the timing of all these AfD's is concerning also. If there had been consensus and NCRIC updated so that FC/List-A/T20 matches in top competitions aren't enough to qualify, then AfDing 'some' articles may have been appropriate. Me bring Störm to the noticeboard was only about him closing his own AfD's though, especially with some of them having time to run on their discussions or consensus that was still to be divided. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mjroots for the ping. This issue is not new and has not popped up overnight. But then it went without popping up for 14 years and everyone seemed fine with that. Whatever the issue of conduct relating to AfD discussions, I believe there are two separate arguments being made here and they are at cross-purposes to each other. While trying not to change the subject, the fact that "sportspeople bios have overwhelmed the WPs categories because of too-inclusive subjects-specific guidelines" [sic] shows simply how efficient we have been at creating them over the last 16 years or more. The continued claim that the project is biased towards cricket coverage bears no weight. It might surprise some WP:CRIC project members to know that other sports are covered on Wikipedia too - and, ironically, in much greater and more thorough detail.

For the sake of statistics, Storm's article creation history of 2550 articles, contains 1356 pages with the auto-summary "moved page... to", 672 with "Redirected page to", and six with the words "may refer to". I cannot say anything else regarding the issue. (That is not to say I could not). To be blunt, I would be de-sysopped. Bobo. 09:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the "low bar" of notability criteria for cricket articles, it is identical to that of football, ice hockey, American football, basketball, and baseball. Bobo. 09:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

On that specific last point, they're not equivalent and I don't think anyone seriously claims they are; because of the nature of how global cricket is structured with multiple different variants of the game, a calendar based around international touring, and a culture of top-level clubs giving chances to newcomers, it's far easier for a cricketer to make an appearance "at the highest international or domestic level" than it is in (for example) baseball. That's not to say the notability guidelines are wrong—particularly for international level it's usually reasonable to assume that at minimum "local boy makes good" stories will have appeared in the newspapers—but the structure of cricket isn't equivalent to that of the NFL or the Bundesliga. ‑ Iridescent 10:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Numerically speaking, they are. My query has never been whether they were equivalent to each other. Bobo. 10:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose- firstly, this should have been combined with the other thread. Secondly, oppose a ban on cricketer AfDs because this user does good work in clearing out permastubs about non-notable people. Thirdly, oppose a ban on closing own AfDs because Störm has already agreed to stop doing that- so that a ban at this point would only be a punitive black mark that actually accomplishes nothing behaviour-wise. Reyk _YO! 10:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

If only to make this point in a wider setting, away from the cricket Wikiproject talk page, to consider certain individuals as "non-notable people", whether right or wrong, is a considerable value judgement. and stands square against both subject-specific (CRIN) and overarching (N) guidelines. Reyk, I have no issue with you making this claim, in fact, I'm being surprisingly considerate in the fact that WP: and WT:CRIC may be considered (by some) to be a "walled garden". Bobo. 10:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support AfD ban of some kind for any type of articles. Flooding AfD with dozens of noms can be seen as vexatious, and has driven away at least two very active editors from the project sicne the start of the year. As I've said on Storm's talkpage, I have no issue with them taking any article to AfD, and some of them might well be deleted, but excessive nominating is not the way to do it. A previous RfC closed with the text "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". I see that Storm has been willing to listen to comments, so we're not in WP:IDHT terrority, so if editors think a six-month ban from AfD is too harsh, then prehaps a limit of one AfD per day instead, which I know has been enforced with other editors in the past. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Those of us who have been busy creating articles for all this time have been driven away from doing so and/or completely driven away from the project. Article creation is no longer happening and there is no longer any incentive to do so. Bobo. 11:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Support limit to One AfD per day as per Lugnuts, while I have no problem with there being cricket AfD articles, they have become excessive in number. It's difficult to get a good consensus on these articles when there are upwards of 20 put up a day. Limiting to one a day would allow Storm to continue AfDing but would also allow WP:CRIC members the time to vote on them, whereas trying to find time to vote on 20 AfD's can be difficult for some members. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

A limit of one AfD/day is acceptable to me. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable solution to me and will hopefully help improve the level of discussion on cricket articles at AFD, which has dropped of significantly recently. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to accept the limit, if User:Lugnuts also limit their article creation (especially related to cricket) to some reasonable number because they create lookalike permastubs (WP:KITTENS) and are the source of the mess we are in. One article limit is a good deal to User:Lugnuts as it will take much longer to clear their mess. I am willing to limit myself to five articles per day (I did spate of nominations in past only because I usually find limited time as I do all WP:BEFORE work at once and then nominate them at once. I willing to avoid that in future). Störm (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope. If you think there's an issue with my article creations, then feel free to start an ANI thread about it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no issues with the cricket articles Lugnuts creates, they are for current players who are likely to go onto multiple games and gain significant coverage from that. There is no problem with creating stubs, it just needs others with the time/expertise to expand them (users from certain areas will be able to find sources from players from their area or language for example). Over time these stubs can be evaluated if they no longer play and can then be put up for deletion of they've only played one or a few matches and have no coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have closed a number of AfDs filed by Störm that start something like "fails GNG not notable"; however in almost all cases other editors give more substantial arguments for keeping or deleting the article (or in the rare case nobody does, I will typically close as soft delete). I think I'll put him in the same category as John Pack Lambert - "mildly annoying, but that's it". Unless there is a mass exodus of editors upset at seeing all these cricketer bios at AfD - and I don't think there is - any sanctions are more a solution looking for a problem, in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support AfD close sanction only Came here after a DRV request. I have more of a problem with the "passes WP:CRIN so GNG is irrelevant" votes at the AfDs than the actual AfDs themselves, especially considering the "when are cricketers notable"/WP:CRIN reform discussion was so all over the place it led me to take a wikibreak. The problem here in my opinion is the AfD closes (I consider the bulk creation of cricket stubs an issue as well, but this is not the right forum for that.) I'd support a light sanction that Störm not be closing any AfD, much less self-closing, which should be obvious. They do not appear to be an administrator, so this should not be a controversial restriction. I don't think there should be a formal sanction about cricket AfDs, but so many of them are open at the moment and they're all Störm-initiated that it is a minor problem, but not necessarily a long-term sanctionable one. I'd strongly recommend letting all of the ones at AfD play out before continuing. SportingFlyer T·C 19:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support AfD close sanction only as outlined above by SportingFlyer. Admins should only be doing uncontroversial closures of AFD, and quite a number of Störm's seem to be controversial. In particular, closing AFDs that you've started or participated in seems to break WP:NACINV. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

A sub-point to this is that of the AFDs that Störm has started, a large proportion have been closed with a delete outcome (either delete or redirect). So on that basis, I'm hesitant to support a ban on them creating AFDs, although maybe speed should be slower (as 50 in one day is a lot). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions against Storm; support thanking them instead, per data. There's no need for a don't-close-own-AFDs sanction where Storm has already voluntarily agreed not to do that (as I understand it). W/r/t bulk nominations, I think if we allow bulk creation of stubs based solely on statistics websites, then we should allow bulk AFD nomination as well.
  W/r/t Storm's nominations overall: of the last 116 of Storm's noms that closed (excluding no consensus and open noms), which go back a month or so to Jan 24, 2021, per AFD stats the match was 91.4% [140]. And that's counting merges as non-matching; if we count merges as matching, it goes up to 113/116 or 97.4%! Of the previous 200 noms, which range from March 25, 2020 to Jan 24, 2021, the match percent is 72.1% [141], and counting merges as matching, that goes up to 160/190 or 84.2%. The previous set of 200 runs from Nov 30, 2019 to March 25, 2020, and is 88.5% match [142]. So the data shows Storm's noms are overwhelmingly good, and that Storm's noms over the last month, though more voluminous, are still matching at >90%, which means Storm is actually getting better at choosing which articles to nominate.
  So, I oppose sanctioning Storm for correctly nominating articles; instead, I thank Storm for doing so. Though I will add that it would be better to reduce the number of concurrently-open AFDs in any one topic area: just because you have time to nominate 100 at a time doesn't mean anyone else has time to review that many. I would suggest limiting the number of concurrent open noms by any one editor to some reasonable number per WP:DELSORT list. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I've not checked, but I'd wager a small fortune that a lot of those AfDs had Lambert as the only participant, with his usual deletion !vote. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Like a few has said, I understand what Storm is trying to do but the fact of the matter is, he has been flooding the Afd with all of these which isn't what should you do. For me I also support the limit to One afd per day so the people at WP:CRIC will be able to do these reviews. HawkAussie (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support AfD close sanction - clearly, people shouldn't be closing their own AfDs unless it is to withdraw them as 'speedy keep' so I have no objection to that. I would also support some sort of limit to the number of AfDs that Störm can start in one day. There is no rush whatsoever to get these articles deleted and the risk of flooding AfD with multiple cricketers in a given day is that people will simply not have the time to actually look at the cricketers in question. Recent AfDs show this in that a lot of the responses are simply 'keep because he meets CRICN' or 'delete - fails GNG' but with little useful analysis, which was seen on the earlier ones a lot more. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support one AfD per day sanction - the issue with the AfDs is their sheer volume, which creates essentially no scope for an actual debate on the article, or indeed time to improve the quality of the article, which in many cases is possible and indeed simple with a little bit of sensible online and offline reviewing of sources; this is what leads to one line responses rather than detailed debate on the merits. Essentially the problem stems from a disagreement about what constitutes notability in the case of sportspeople, as none of the AfDs are for players who have not played a List A or first class match. However, this isn't a discussion which should really be played out through individual AfDs, but across Wikipedia as a whole, as the criteria for cricket are actually more restrictive than for many other sports (see WP:NGRIDIRON, where a single Arena Football (not NFL) match is sufficient; or WP:NFOOTY, where a single match in the Moldovan National Division or the Myanmar National League would be sufficient. One AfD per day would allow this debate to happen. DevaCat1 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Even more absurdly, in football, you can pass the SNG with just a few seconds of professional football. There have been many deleted recently that had less than a minute of football and almost zero apparent coverage. At least in cricket you usually need to at least see out the one match to claim that status of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have decided to leave the WP:CRIC and will never AfD any cricket article in future nor I will participate in their discussion or close any AfD. If it is acceptable to community then I will continue with WP else I will leave as it will be shame if I get any type of block as I never mean it. Will appreciate the feedback. Thanks. Störm (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Störm, you don’t mean that, that’s just hasty, & unnecessary tbh. I’m not sure how I feel about you closing AFD’s you started, which is a default no no, except you are withdrawing & speedy keeping it. However, I oppose any sanctions on you seeing as a simple warning would suffice and generally, you do very decent work. It’s a good thing the perfection threshold is impossible to meet. So just take a deep breath before commenting any further. Celestina007 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's completely fine for you to edit Wikipedia, and would hate to see you split over this; my only "beef", so to speak, is huge waves of AfD nominations. jp×g 05:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions, as I believe a detailed warning should be adequate here. A sanction would punitive as the “problem” isn’t ongoing. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Propose limit of 3 AfD closes per day, for his next dozen AfD closes. There is no great crime, just a reminder to close carefully needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support limit to one AfD per day - I can say from experience and observation that a single person flooding a topic area with a mass amount of AfD nominations in a short amount of time is almost never a good thing (regardless of percieved or assumed cruft), except maybe in certain cases of obvious violations of recent mass consensus or something to that effect (And even then, it shouldn't be just one or two editors doing the nominating). In this case, the user seems to be mass-using copy/paste cookie cutter rationales like "Fails GNG, no coverage found" (volume of nominations + lack of variation in rationales = it's dubious that the nom is actually adhering to GNG and WP:NEXIST, or that anyone had time to properly assess the articles). Then there's the more blatant conflict of interest of closing your own AfDs, which is red flag #3. Darkknight2149 08:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support limiting the rate of nominations: looking through their AfD nominations, we see that between 2021-02-25T12:05:42 and 2021-02-25T12:14:14 there are a whopping 13 noms in less than ten minutes, some of them as little as 18 seconds apart. This would perhaps be understandable if they were obvious garbage, but looking at the actual outcome of that string, only eight (57%) of them closed as Delete. And it might seem like a "had them queued up" situation, but it is part of a recurring pattern (on February 1, they nominated a whopping 30 articles in a span of less than 20 minutes). AfD is clogged up enough as it is; it doesn't need to be deluged by a firehose of slapdash nominations. jp×g 05:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  Across 200 nominations made between Jan 24, 2021 and February 26, 2021, Storm's match rate was 84.4% [143]. During that same period of time, according to PetScan, 66 new articles with {{infobox cricketer}} were created [144], including stat-box stubs copied from ESPN Cricinfo like [145] [146] [147] [148] [149]. Rate limiting deletion nominations without rate limiting creations seems unwise. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Between January 1, 2021, and January 24, 2021, there were 102 new articles with {{Infobox cricketer}} created [150], including [151] [152] [153] [154] [155]. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  In the last two weeks, between February 26, 2021 and today, March 9, 2021, 73 new articles with {{infobox cricketer}} were created [156], including [157] [158] [159] [160] [161]. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Levivich: When someone is filing a copious amount of AfDs with cookie-cutter rationales within a short period of time, deletion match rates are both irrelevant and misleading. At the rate that Störm is filing AfDs, it is highly unlikely that deletion procedure is being followed correctly or that deletion criteria (such as WP:GNG) is actually being adhered to. There's no reason for any single editor to be filing AfDs at that rate by themselves, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone had time to properly assess all of these articles (and the quality of sourcing and writing in an article ain't a reason to delete). Similarly, a barrage of poorly conceived noms can lead to fast closures and bandwagon voting. Coupled with Störm closing his own nominations, some sort of cap is clearly needed. Darkknight2149 02:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'd rather cap the WP:KITTENS. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  I actually wouldn't mind that. Darkknight2149 02:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction, per Levivich data above. Storm is clearly doing good work and Levich has clearly demonstrated this. Oppose a ban on closing own AfDs because Störm has already agreed to stop so a sanction would be not be prevenative. Why a good faith editor with a successful AfD rate is being put through this is very objectionable. This should be closed as nothing has been shown to justify any sanction (other than successful AfDs).  // Timothy :: talk  18:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction for Störm, per Levivich's analysis. Also Oppose Störm being restricted—or feeling forced to self-restrict for placatory purposes—from nominating non-notable articles for deletion: rather, we should be getting a nice tall ladder, propping it up against WP:NCRIC, and letting ANYBIO climb all over that walled garden. ——Serial 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nora Elshwemy

Nora Elshwemy (talk · contribs) keeps on creating articles that are copy and paste of existing articles (at 3 over the last 24 hours) but are translated in (I think) Arabic. They have been asked to stop [[162]] and told to stop [[163]]. This is getting disruptive. Note that apart from this all they have done is copy the same material to their soapbox. They have made no other edits (not even a user page).Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at their talk page, this behaviour has been going on for years. Is there anyone who is able to type a response in Arabic to this user to essentially tell them to write in the Arabic Wikipedia? It seems quite clear that this user has no grasp of English at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this looks more like Egyptian Arabic than Modern Standard Arabic to me, so the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia (yes) might be more appropriate.. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There are basic templates for these situations in Category:Non-English user warning templates, and I left {{Contrib-ar1}} on the user's talk page. Had their article submissions been in poor English, there's {{Welcomeen-ar}}. As an aside, if you're fluent in more than one language, please look at the warning templates and the Category:Non-English welcome messages. Many languages are still missing from the list, and yours may be one of those. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this means they got the message, they created another, but then deleted the text [[164]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

And we now have this [[165]], there is no attempt to engage or explain, not even now they have been wanted in their own language, their response if to blank.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I finally thought to check their accounts, and they've been at Arabic Wikipedia since December 2016. Apparently what they've been doing recently is translating articles from English to Arabic and moving them to their sandbox there. Why they tried to publish them here is a mystery. Perhaps now they understand it doesn't work, and won't do it again. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, so maybe they are using article space as a sandbox, that makes some sense.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back Attacks & False Accusations

Not sure what can be done at this point, but this has gone on long enough to warrant at least a record of User:Horse Eye's Back's recent behavior. For full details, see Talk:Taiwan. (Comments are mine.)

Exhibit 1
(pretty minor, so I let it slide) We aren’t talking about isolated tribes, we’re talking about more than 1/3-2/3 of the island’s land area that the Qing had not yet conquered when the colonial project of conquering Taiwan from its indigenous people was turned over to the Japanese. Only under the Japanese did the indigenous nations in the mountains lose their sovereignty. You appear to be arguing semantics when you should stick to history 101. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Would you agree then only parts of the island were ceded by the Qing to Japan? The Empire of Japan did not think so! It sounds like you are just trolling now. Don't you get it, your personal opinion of what defines annexation does not matter. Spain, Portugal, Mexico, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Imperial Russia, the Mongol Empire, Qing China, etc. all possessed/possesses significant territories where the indigenous peoples were/are not conquered or subdued. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(seriously?) Your repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations is unhelpful as well as offensive. The Empire of Japan had to invest a significant amount of blood and treasure in conquering the last of the independent indigenous nations of Taiwan, I think they were well aware that they were not being handed the sovereignty of all of Taiwan because the Qing did not possess it in the first place to give it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

First, no one understands your position anymore. Qing's annexation of the island is well evidenced by historical documents, and Japan specifically asked for the cession of the entire island of Taiwan and all its appertinent islands from the Qing. I've also listed numerous nations whose territorial expansions were recognized internationally despite not having conquered/subdued all their indigenous peoples. Case closed. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Second, your ludicrous and outright fabricated accusation that somehow my writing amounted to "repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations" completely perverts its true character while conveniently omitting the fact that you were the one who first brought up the notions of conquest and subjugation. Please stop trolling and spreading lies before this escalates. Lastly, before telling other people whether they should stick to semantics or history 101 or what not, you may want to brush up on these topics yourself. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Exhibit 2
(chose not to respond) WikiwiLimeli, I don’t think you posses the necessary competence when it comes to this topic to be drafting sections for the lead... Within Taiwanese domestic politics there are *three* major camps not two, status quo is a position in its own right not part of the two others. I would also note that status quo factions exist within both the KMT and DPP and in fact those factions are currently dominant within both parties. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Exhibit 3
(While there are comments on other paragraphs, there were no major objections from other editors to the history paragraph at that point, which was my edit that User:Horse Eye's Back chose to revert wholesale and, on top of that, malign me. From edit history) 05:27, 8 March 2021‎ Horse Eye's Back talk contribs‎ 246,969 bytes −139‎ Revert lead to pre-edit war condition, consensus for the changes to the lead is being falsely claimed by WikiwiLimeli undothank Tag: Manual revert
— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiwiLimeli (talk • contribs)

I have found HEB to be a bit of a grump (eg: Talk:Russell S. Winer); however, being a bit of a grump isn't a sanctionable offense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think we need a noticeboard to report users that forget to sign their posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 12:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• As Ritchie333 said I can be a bit of a grump, but I do also appear to be right. Now to the exhibits:

Exhibit 1: Wait, is that them baselessly accusing me of trolling and spreading lies? I wouldn’t have cherry picked that section if I were them. These are their hand picked snippets from a massive conversation and yet I still look better than them.

Exhibit 2: I stand by that, WikiwiLimeli lacks the competency to to make sweeping rewrites to the lead of Taiwan. Why they chose not to respond after being informed that their understanding of Taiwanese politics was inaccurate is beyond me.

Exhibit 3: They didn’t have consensus, both editors who they claimed agreed with them reverted them as well "Revert. Many new claims being inserted into the lead need discussion in talk. Furthermore, consensus was not obtained for (some) other edits as claimed."[166] “partial revert; there is NO consensus on this addition in the talk...” [167][168]. They were also told on the talk page that their changes did not have consensus “However, your recent edits haven't gotten consensus here, and I and others apparently don't agree with all of them.” [169] yet they persisted in claiming it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Ex 1: Does this mean you stand by your accusation that somehow I engaged in "repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations"? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It does, as I stated before I found your comments regarding the historical sovereignty of Taiwan’s indigenous nations to be both unhelpful in the specific context under discussion and categorically offensive, especially when you then doubled down on those comments and tried to apply them to the whole world (you botched the history on that one too, remember?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Also do not threaten me with spurious legal action again, Wikipedia *is* IRL... You made those comments in real life. I wrote what I wrote, I stand by what I wrote. If me calling you out on what you wrote would be terribly damaging to your career if people became aware of it [170] maybe you shouldn't have written the offensive things in the first place? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Ex 2: This opinion coming from someone who insisted annexation implies full subjugation of indigenous populations, despite evidence contradicting that. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That reading of my argument is your and yours alone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Ex 3: Here you go again. There are disputes about other edits, but that's not what you reverted and directly accused me of falsifying consensus for. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I’d check again if I were you, also you never got consensus... So are you saying you never claimed consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Propose boomerang

Clearly disruptive behavior, falsly claiming consensus even after multiple editors have pointed out that they don’t have consensus is a big deal. More that they admit that they don’t have full consensus but they think its ok to proceed anyway "I spent a full moth gaining partial if not full consensus on the Talk page while you've been clicking away at undo.”[171] Trying to bludgeon questionable claims into the lead of a major wikipedia article is a big deal. Wasting admin time at ANI with false reports is a big deal, how they don’t understand that they were falsely claiming consensus is beyond me. Battleground behavior [172] is a big deal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Here you go again. Switching up the chronology. Do you get away with doing this all the time? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Accusing good faith editors of "trolling and spreading lies" during a commonplace content dispute is also a big deal. You should abandon that bad behavior, WikiwiLimeli. It is not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read my exhibit? HEB accused me first of "repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations", which is completely untrue and also would be a huge deal in my country (not sure about WP). Had they done so IRL, I would have filed a legal complaint. I (edit: initially WikiwiLimeli (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)) stopped short of actually accusing them of trolling (which for some reason seems to be a bigger deal on WP than what he's done to me), but they had already made 1/2 dozen of posts insisting that their definition of annexation (requiring full subjugation of indigenous populations) had to be the only one, even though no one else agreed with them. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:Cullen328 Even if trolling or not might be a subjective call, the other stuff HEB wrote about me were untrue, unwarranted, and carry serious implications. Still waiting to see if you have an actual set of standards upon which you are basing your judgment. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It is bad form to post essentially the same point in two different places, WikiwiLimeli, and I have responded in detail on my talk page where you posted pretty much the same thing. In brief, as an administrator, I am scrutinizing your behavior and encouraging you to correct it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? I only posted on your talk page because you provided the link to it after your comment. Now you are accusing me of bad form. Is this a trap? The case with HEB is not two sides flaming each other. They clearly attacked me first. I only pointed out their behavior and told them to stop. Even regarding trolling, I was reserved until they made up something about me groundlessly. If HEB were to lie about me again, I will call them out on it again. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with the initial ANI, and I do think that WikiwiLimeli is acting in good faith, but has a tendency to react very defensively, very quickly when editors disagree or criticize or don't accept their proposals. E.g. on Talk:Taiwan, accusing editors of "group psychosis" (later calling it an "impersonal question") or not spending time doing research or "spreading lies", or that "real people" would "laugh" at editors like me. In one instance, they accused me of ignoring their perspective, and I replied that it wasn't me that reverted the edit, and they accused me of "making stuff up again" (seems to have deleted that response, see [173]). In one case I explained that I was against their proposed addition to the lead, and they demanded that I therefore justify everything in the lead. Generally, I'm kind of ambivalent about their edits, some of them seem horizontal, some are improvements, some are not, some I just vaguely think are awkwardly worded. But it's hard to work with someone with this kind of attitude; it's exhausting. Every little word turns into a battle (which, going forward, I will refrain from engaging in as much as possible). I'm not suggesting sanctions/punishment, just trying to start a conversation outside the context of any particular editing dispute. DrIdiot (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a selective representation of what happened. There are things you said that came out of nowhere and I can provide actual examples, but I deleted the remark because it's not worth pursuing. Somehow you associate my frustration with characterization against you personally while I was just making a general statement. I don't have any personal grudges against you DrIdiot, but HEB is going way overboard IMO (see above). That might have carried into my general sentiment, and I'm sorry for any unintended offense. Some of your edits have good rationales behind them but are somewhat lacking in terms of sources, which would have benefited both readers and editors if provided. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

For my part, I do not always communicate clearly. I'm not here looking to fight. Let's just both make a committment to try to keep things as constructive as possible and not take things personally going forward. Keep in mind editors aren't trying to thwart you; they might not like your edits for subjective reasons (e.g. wording) or might not understand your rationale. Assume good faith. DrIdiot (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And, even if they ultimately disagree, it's not about you. DrIdiot (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

As someone who is not directly involved here, I am nonetheless concerned about the means in which WikiwiLimeli appears to have cast aspersions that Horse Eye's Back was "just trolling" in making comments on the talk page regarding the status of Taiwan at the time of the Qing transfer of de jure sovereignty to Japan and in further accusing HEB of "trolling and spreading lies" at a later date. In the same edit, WikiwiLimeli responded to DrIdiot by asking if editors were suffering from "group psychosis". In later interactions with DrIdiot, WikiwiLimeli accused the editor of just making sh_t up". These are clearly non-civil interactions that don't appear to follow the WP:AGF guideline, thought it does not appear that WikiwiLimeli has attempted to offer an apology thus far or accepted any sort of fault. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As I have done so earlier, I again apologize if any of my remarks hurt others, some of which probably have. However, I have never directly accused anyone of anything unbecoming without evidence. It was becoming ridiculous how HEB insisted round after round that annexation must = full subjugation without any evidence backing them up, while I had them. Is that not trolling? I shouldn't have said "just making sh_t up" and a few other things to DrIdiot intended to refer to some of the claims they had made. I'm sorry if I crossed the line and let my frustration get to the better of me as the process went on. It was not meant to be a specific, groundless, serious attack like what HEB had leveled at me. A lot of you have issues with accusations, but my statements were factual about HEB's attack on me. It's quite interesting how after all my faults have been picked apart, no one wants to even mention what started this all. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You're right regarding the apology to DrIdiot, where you said that you are "sorry for any unintended offense." I apologize for the lack of clarity in my comment; you have apologized to DrIdiot and my comment was written in a way that implied you did not; I had intended to communicate that you have not offered an apology to Horse Eye's Back. I have struck the relevant portions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the other point, that "HEB insisted round after round that annexation must = full subjugation without any evidence backing them up, while I had them. Is that not trolling?." This is a content dispute, and reading through the talk page it appears that HEB was making an affirmative argument that the native peoples of Taiwan were mostly not subjugated under Qing rule and that the Japanese had to conquer native tribes in order to produce de facto sovereignty over the island, rather than just a de jure sovereignty that was recognized by treaty (HEB wrote that, "We aren’t talking about isolated tribes, we’re talking about more than 1/3-2/3 of the island’s land area that the Qing had not yet conquered when the colonial project of conquering Taiwan from its indigenous people was turned over to the Japanese. Only under the Japanese did the indigenous nations in the mountains lose their sovereignty"). I don't think this is trolling, since it articulates a coherent position (though it might be a minority position; I have to look through more sources) that Taiwan was not colonized to the point of effective annexation until it was under Japanese rule due to an insufficient amount of land having been conquered by the Qing prior to handover of claims to the island by the Qing to the Japanese. I also don't think that the assertion that "no one understands your [HEB's] position anymore" is fair to Horse Eye's Back, if my understanding of their argument is correct. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

By "no one" I only meant among the editors actively in discussion, not every one in the world. It wasn't a helpful comment in retrospect, but by then the situation had already become very different (see below). WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't have any preconceived notion going into this. Looking at the body at the time and other articles on Qing "annexation", none suggested it being partial. Looking at the article on annexation, a whole list of countries with widely known indigenous unrests. HEB's position was not supported by the body nor any other article I could find nor external RS, but they were really hung up on insisting "partial" annexation. Why didn't they edit the body then, and add RS, especially if it were, as they had claimed, "common knowledge"? Whenever I made a proposal, the other editors were sticklers about RS, consensus, sometimes going around in circles in terms of their objections. On the other hand, the body had been left inconsistent as such with the lead for a while, and HEB (in light of all our back-and-forth edits and their reverts) seemed to have the time to spare. And then telling me to "stick to history 101". All these indications suggested stalling (since there seems to be some sensitivity around "trolling" here), not a genuine content dispute. Of course, I figured it could have just been some random zealous person getting really defensive, but I did want to make my observation known to HEB that they seemed to be just tr***ing at the time, i.e. arguing for no good reason. I mean, WP:AGF right? Of course, with HEB's next volley at me, that went straight out of the window. I don't think any reasonable person would have interpreted what followed as good faith. Looking back, I wish I hadn't responded afterwards so strongly. Things might have turned out better. But I was very offended, considering the line of work I'm IRL. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I think if editors look at DrIdiot's post and then see how WikiwiLimeli responds, and look at their responses to Cullen and Mikehawk10 as well, you'll have a good idea of how WikiwiLimeli interacts with others. Looking at the Taiwan talk page, I wouldn't have been as generous towards WikiwiLimeli as DrIdiot is being; DrIdiot is clearly trying to give WikiwiLimeli a way out of this, but they respond negatively and agressively. I think this demonstrates the problem is not about how they react to Horse Eye, but a problem in general with how WikiwiLimeli communicates and responds to others. BATTLEGROUND and failure to LISTEN is the problem.

WikiwiLimeli, if the community tells you here that you need to change the way you communicate and interact with others, will you accept that and change or will you continue to insist you are right and not change?  // Timothy :: talk  08:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing you won't find fault with my interactions in the future, but I'd appreciate it if discussion unrelated to HEB not take over, since while I respect your point, similar points have already been raised by other editors. Anyhow, I've never had any issue with anyone before this row with HEB. I do regret how things deteriorated afterwards, but it was only a part of my overall editing experience. I disagree with your characterization but understand how things appear in retrospect. As for Cullen328, I don't know what to say. IMO he prematurely judged this to be a commonplace content dispute and assumed HEB was acting in good faith. Then he blocked me while I was in the middle of responding to this, despite having ambiguous basis, which was very unhelpful. But since I've never known him or Mike or you before, I won't base any judgment on our brief interactions so far. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• WikiwiLimeli when you come to ANI, your conduct will be examined along with anyone you report. This is regular practice and if you can expect it each time you come here. The best thing you can do for yourself right now is disengage from this discussion; the BATTLEGROUNDing and failure to LISTEN problem is becoming more obvious each time you post. HEB hasn't done anything that merits a sanction; your conduct has merited a sanction. So you have nothing go gain by contining this, but you're risking another block if you continue. This is the best advice you will receive here: Just walk away.  // Timothy :: talk  10:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I've already complied with everything in WP policies and guidelines, apologized repeatedly and personally for things that I had actually done wrong. Nothing anyone says or choose to ignore will change the original facts about HEB's conduct. The amount of favoritism and disregard for truth here is self-evident, but I won't argue the point anymore. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Trolling of talk pages and threats

Would like to request some urgent admin attention over at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2). As you can see there has been a pile on by unconfirmed editors, IPs towards myself and RandomCanadian. This includes and is not limited to multiple calls (and empty threats) for us to kill ourselves as well as major spamming because of a content dispute. Please can some delete the edits and hide them permanently? I'm not too fussed about actual content of the edits however, it has gotten out of hand.

Involved users:

• RandomCanadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (victim like myself)
• non-involved third party responders Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Redrose64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
• Perpetrators

• 100%ure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irin161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2a02:c7d:8a4d:2d00:1d2f:df1a:5351:c2ad (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 146.7.112.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Caroline Quentin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I suspect some of the perpetrators might be sock puppets of each other.

Notified the involved users.≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Deepfriedokra is in the midst of sorting it out. El_C 22:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response(s). Must have happened while I was filing the report. Can we redact the threats from the page history please? Is any further admin support required? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

There's also some very probably copyvio (the big edit here) and some more blatant threats like this. Though as I said since that was there pretty much throughout the whole bit can probably be revdelled. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Bloody Hell! I just semi'd a talk page. Revdle'd. Blocked. Please someone, check my work. I doubt if I blocked all of the mob that attacked that page. Adjust as you see fit. Actions of this magnitude need double checking. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Never seen such a pile on, so quickly. Thanks again for the swift action. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, Deepfriedokra, I protected the main article a couple of days ago, so I guess we can be RuPaul buddies! El_C 23:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

- I feel uncomfortable with the article being unprotected given what's happened today. What do you think> ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

When life gives you zesty lemons, make lemonade DFO

:The full protection expires on the 10th. It was imposed due to edit warring among EC users. Not sure I want to touch that further just yet. El_C 23:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

We (by that meaning not myself because I'm not an admin and if I were, I'm involved) can probably stick indefinite SP (but if I remember correctly that page was already protected, hence the reason I fell upon it and fell into this when I was going through CAT:ESP) under the full protection. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. But the semiprotection that my full protection overwrote was set to expire on the 12th. El_C 00:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The more pragmatic deadline would be the figure out when the last episode of this will air and have SP expire a week or two after that; but given that this has an apparently very dedicated Wikipedia-editing fan following, not sure if it will just cease all of a sudden when it goes out of the short-term memory of the said fan group. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Update. After the SP, clean up and blocking, discussion on the talk page is better. I will be slipping away from this. I would like to keep this thread open in case problems arise after the expiration of FP on the article. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Well there still is the same repeated fan-ish requests on the talk page (I've held short of removing them); so not that much of an improvement.RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And now (two!) socks and a rangeblock... @Zzuuzz: Thanks for that. The last edit by that IP could maybe use edit summary deletion too? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we're all done. And BTW, FTR, some of the sockery smells of User:ZestyLemonz. It's sometimes difficult to tell on those types of page though. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

We'll find out. FP just ended. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, there is a ground swell of edits that are felt to be in violation of WP:MOS. Particularly MOS:ACCESS. Apparently all RuPaul's Drag Race UK pages are like this. The rationale being they must all be the same. I hate MOS fights, but acknowledge the importance MOSACESS. Best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I note that within a couple of hours the original table has been restored in the name of "keep them all the same". I obviously will not restore the other version, particularly as there is a discussion on the talk page that is still ongoing (in which I participated, arguing for the removal of such tables, for full disclosure). It's not just RuPaul's Drag Race UK tables that are like this, but many many tables for all sorts of reality TV shows. From what I can gather, there appear to be... strong feelings, shall we say, around including and speedily updating these tables during a series. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• My 2c: due to the multiple recent protections, the page(s) should be ECP for a good duration (months). EC editors who continue to edit war (or violate WP:ACCESS!) should be handled one-by-one: give them a warning, and on second offense, partial block, and if they continue on a different page, full block. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

IP nonsense threats and personal attacks

• 69.94.57.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 174.197.130.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 174.197.133.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

69.94.57.91 disputed an image change (with nonsense threats) on 4 (New York City Subway service), the issue was resolved by another IP editor. But then today, 174.197.130.137 is likely the same user, all these edits are blatant WP:NOTHERE with their personal attacks on my talk page. Other matches between the IPs include reading comprehension and mobile edits. Cards84664 18:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If nothing else; there is a severe WP:CIR issue because the English in the edit summaries is almost incomprehensible. 86.164.109.106 (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP making personal attacks for a month and revdelled those comments, and I've semi-protected the target page for two months. I'm not sure whether the other IPs need action. Fences&Windows 19:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Issues with editor

• Ragnimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Malassay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Ragnimo, has been warned multiple times by myself and others to stop editwarring on articles. [174] [175] [176] [177] [178]. We've had disagreements on multiple pages and I have told them to stop harassing me by showing up on articles/talk page discussions involving me before [179]. Fast forward today, the user showed up on an article I created Malassay, they begin by POV pushing and removing content that I added. [180] and when I disagree with the removal, they tell me to "discuss before making changes"[181]. This editor also doesnt understand the WP:BRD process, the editor made one reply and didnt even bother to wait for mine, he immediately editwarred right after [182] [183]. Its difficult to edit wikipedia when an editor follows me around and attempts to exert ownership of an article. Magherbin (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all those diffs are all past disputes that were resolved from several weeks and months apart. It's unrelated.

Having disagreements with you means harassment? I opened up a talk section to discuss the changes[184] and i kept referring you to it but you kept making changes anyways[185] and edit warring. Thats according to Wiki Policy. That you are supposed to see to discuss and seek consensus.

I only showed up to the Malasay article you made after i had made revert of a sock on the Adal article [186] and corrected the information about them on the Adal military section[187]: . You tried to restore an edit made by a sock.

I have not only explained my edits in the edit summary but i explained them 1 by 1 in the talk section. Also explained why your edits were wrong. You just seem to be persistent in adding a specific POV onto the page regardless of what the sources say and even if it violates WP:Fringe or WP:OR.

Secondly you also don't seem to understand what neutral POV even means, you think it means creating some WP:FALSEBALANCE. When it means that the mainstream view gets the most weight and then other minority opinions are either marginalized or not even added. Only the mainstream view of something is added to a leed introduction. Ragnimo (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It is worth noting that whiles Ragnimo is citing WP:FRINGE both above as well as on Noticeboard#Ethnicity_of_Ahmed_ibn_ibrahim_al_ghazi, they've been concurrently arguing with multiple editors for the inclusion of minority viewpoints on other articles: Noticeboard#Nur_ibn_Mujahid. They have recently been warned by @EdJohnston: due to edit warring over Horn of Africa articles and alerted to active Horn of Africa discretionary sanctions. Other harassment reports against Ragnimo here. Judging by their nationalist POV pushing and disruptive history (recent example of edit warring: [188], [189], [190], [191]), WP:NOTHERE might apply given ongoing discretionary sanctions on Horn of Africa articles. They're not here to build an encyclopedia. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This ANI was opened by Magherbin to complain about edits by Ragnimo. I'm responding here since my name was mentioned due to a 3RR which I closed. Here is the 3RR case from last December about the Ethiopian–Adal war which led to warnings to Magherbin, Ragnimo and Ayaltimo. Prior to that, in January of 2020 Magherbin was unblocked per a standard offer after a previous socking violation. Ragnimo and Magherbin have both been alerted under WP:ARBHORN. These two users have made some effort at discussion at Talk:Malassay but I recommend more steps of WP:DR before coming to ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ragnimo still reverts during discussion and is removing tags [192], this is not just a content dispute, they dont follow wikipedia guideliness. Magherbin (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

IP range vandalism of user talk pages

• 92.40.202.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Persistent vandalism of user talk pages and jumping to a new IP after each block. I'm not sure if this range is the best one, I put a few into ip-range-calc and this is what it gave me. DanCherek (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, just saw that this exact range was blocked in December and the block expired 2 days ago, so fairly sure this is the right one. DanCherek (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I came to the talk page of Cancel culture in good faith looking at some dubious sourcing at the article, User:Crossroads asked me to not make vague complaints [193], so I came back to discuss the overall quyality of sourcing, making it clear I was happy to be corrected and to discuss things in a civil manner. Then Crossroads just launched into a personal attack:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACancel_culture&type=revision&diff=1010567513&oldid=1010539306

I feel like this is completely out of line and nothing more than a full blown personal attack. They do not own the page. I'm not seeking sanctions, I just want the personal attacks to removed, for the personal attacks to cease and for content discussion to be civil going forward. Bacondrum 04:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

What exactly did I say that is a personal attack?

Readers of this thread should see the two previous ANI threads about this topic and involving Bacondrum. At the first, from June 2019, Bacondrum was reported for tendentious editing and related misbehavior and a topic ban was requested; it was closed with a statement saying, Bacondrum has admitted to making mistakes. I am of the opinion that they should have another chance — I'm a big believer in second chances. They are taking a break from the article. If and/or when they return to it, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that's both collegial and collaborative. Sanctions at this point would be a bit harsh. At any rate, I feel hopeful. At the second, from July 2020, Bacondrum opened the original ANI thread (scroll up), and I, a previously uninvolved editor, added a subsection about Bacondrum's misbehavior. As a result, he was blocked from Online shaming and its talk page for 3 months (at that time, all the "cancel culture" material resided on that page). SlimVirgin also commented on his misbehavior. He promised at that ANI after the partial block, I won't be editing the article or commenting on it any further. Don't get to worked up about it. That didn't last. Now he's back at the topic and has been so for some time, and as before is wasting time WP:SEALIONing by tendentiously arguing that various WP:Reliable sources are not reliable, using WP:UNDUE as a POV cudgel, and demanding I WP:SATISFY him. [194] He is also again engaging in soapboxing on the talk page. [195] This report is frivolous, retaliatory, and an expression of the years-long misbehavior and POV pushing on this topic. I have therefore made a proposal below. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"Says who?" is not a valediction used by people "happy to be corrected and to discuss things in a civil manner." Crossroads' response was brusque, but I don't think it rises to a level that would ordinarily warrant administrator intervention. Your criticism of the sourcing may be completely correct on the merits (I admit I have no interest in or desire to enter the underlying content dispute here), but it comes across as something of a Gish gallop. A more focused and sequential approach to criticism of these sources would do more to drive article improvement than asking administrators to tone-police the discussion. Choess (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks; any chance of a clue? Is any text in the article actually wrong? It looks like the topic ban proposal below is the way to go but I'll have to leave examining that for later. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not seeing a PA in the OP, and definitely not a "a full blown personal attack" diff. Bacondrum seems to be upset that Crossroads is brining up past ANIs (I'm entitled to move on from past behaviour andbe given the assumption of good faith.); I agree they should be allowed to "move on from past behaviour", but this requires actually moving on, not just a rinse and repeat.

• The first ANI about Online shaming closed with an admission by Bacondrum that they were in the wrong, and an offer of a "second chance" but with the expectation, "If and/or when they return to it, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that's both collegial and collaborative." Comments made by experienced editors make it clear that their conduct on the page was not acceptable. They state near the end of the thread re: Online shaming, I'm more than happy to leave it, I've played my part in improving the article. But this didn't happen as the second ANI shows.
• The second ANI about Online shaming was started by Bacondrum and resulted in a boomerang partial block from the article and talk page for 3 months. While they disagreed with the block, they stated, I leave the article alone, it'll end up being an incomprehensible mess, but so be it. They might have left Online shaming, but they followed the same subject to the to the current article Cancel culture and we're back for a third round at ANI, again the OP is Bacondrum and after the second ANI they started backfired, they should have been very cautious about started another.
• I don't care about the topic and normally wouldn't have commented, but this section Talk:Cancel culture#Notability issues got my attention. Raising "Notability" issues here (on a clearly notable topic as your examples in Talk:Cancel culture#Reliable sources demonstrate) I believe is a clear prelude to trying to delete an article or grinding it down into a stub. You tried this at AfD recently for Virtue signalling and got your ass handed to you (pardon the expression, it fits) [196]. You participated another time at AfD for Call-out culture (the parent of Cancel culture) with the same Keep result [197], but you still started Talk:Cancel culture#Notability issues on the talk page. You're not LISTENING and refusing to DROPTHESTICK.

Getting into the content dispute here is inappropriate and a distraction. The issue that belongs here is Bacondrum's conduct at the discussion. Bacondrum, I don't know who is "right" on the content dispute (it's ultimately irrelevant here), but an editor can be completely "right" about a content dispute, but completely wrong in the way they go about making their point. Again I have no idea who is "right", but I think the way you're going about the discussion is wrong - you're bludgeoning and battlegrounding, refusing to LISTEN and DROPTHESTICK on a topic that you clearly have an issue with participating constructively in and in the past you've acknowledged you should leave it alone, but seem not to be able to despite two very clear warnings. I've said this before, there are certain subject areas I do not go into because I know if I do I will be banned. I think this is true for all editors and experienced editors recognize it and abstain for their own good. Bacondrum I state all of the above with nothing but goodwill, take it or leave it.

Normally I'd say give the editor a chance to voluntarily abstain from the topic before a ban, but been there done that, and they have not been able to. I think a topic ban unfortunately may be needed, not based on this particular incident, but on this and the above. I also think it might be in the best interests of Bacondrum, before this gets worse and results in something more. However if they are willing to state they will abstain, I'd oppose a formal topic ban with the proviso this is the final chance. I defintely don't want to see a formal ban unless its absolutely needed.  // Timothy :: talk  07:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Bacondrum from cancel culture

• Support, to end the years of time-wasting tendentious editing on this topic, per above. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm having some difficulty in seeing the supposed tendentious editing on Bacondrum's part. I don't see anything objectionable about his analysis of the sourcing of the article, and, indeed, it seems highly inappropriate for it to rely so heavily on opinion pieces and op-eds instead of factual articles. I will say that it was probably a poor choice on Bacondrum's part to file a report here, since the comment from Crossroads he cites is aggresively frank, but not really a PA. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to me that Crossroads was willing to overlook a bit of hyperbole from Bacondrum and deal with the real problems with the article's sourcing that he outlined in considerable detail, and instead jumped immediately into ad hominems aimed at Bacondrum's past, a lot of which I don't see as terribly relevant -- certainly the evidence presented in that comment and above is far from sufficient to justify a topic ban.
  I would say that both parties are being somewhat precipitous, and they should both back off and attempt to deal with each other more calmly, focusing on the specifics of Bacondrum's complaints about the article, and not on each other's behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks BMK, I'd gladly focus on content rather than each other. Bacondrum 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• • I went into more detail why Bacondrum's post at Talk:Cancel culture was tendentious in my reply to him there. Crossroads ^-talk- 09:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

    I don't get it. You want folks to dig through that talk page and pick this out themselves? If a proposal for sanctions is made here, it should be presented with sufficient context and diffs of problematic edits. It's not very effective to expect editors to go digging and figure it out themselves (and seems like railroading otherwise). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

    That's not what I said. Here is Bacondrum's long post, [198] which as I said above is "WP:SEALIONing by tendentiously arguing that various WP:Reliable sources are not reliable, using WP:UNDUE as a POV cudgel, and demanding I WP:SATISFY him", my reply going into some detail with the issues in it, [199] and a recent post by Nil Einne [200] zooming into the misleadingness of one point in particular. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

    I have skimmed that thread and don't see anything wrong with it. SEALIONing does not seem to be apparent. Their listing of "Op-eds, analysis and opinion pieces" is not because the sources are not RS, but because Bacondrum believes they're biased/opinion pieces/etc. He then lists a bunch of journal sources (ie WP:SCHOLARSHIP) which he believes should be used instead. I'm not saying whether the argument is good or not, I haven't looked into the content aspect deeply, but it certainly seems reasonable to bring up. Instead, it seems you immediately accused them of WP:TE in your first response to them (the second diff in your reply to me). See WP:ATONED. If the editor is being productive now, there's no reason to hold his past misgivings against him. If there's a problem with that section, it is not apparent to me. Are there any serious conduct issues that have to be dealt with here, or what are we doing here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I've protected Cancel culture for a day due to some disruptive editing which appears to be mainly by IP editors. Confirmed users can still edit. (I see continued discussion on the talk page.) I would suggest to Bacondrum to tread lightly here (and filing this "PA" complaint where others seem to think it's not a PA is a step in the wrong direction) Historically editors with block logs tend to gain the attention of admins (rightly or wrongly) when they have multiple (page) blocks in the last 9 months. You seem to be passionate on this online shaming/cancel culture topic, which is fine; but I'd suggest a more tempered approach. Just IMO. No preference on this topic ban proposal. — Ched (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for the toe-stepping, but I've set the semiprotection not to expire, because it looks like there has been little if any reprieve from frequent non-confirmed disruption (for a long time), which I don't conceive getting better any time soon, which is to say: for the foreseeable future. El_C 14:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment If a sanction is requested for "years of time-wasting", we're going to need more specific examples than this, and also recent examples of recent disruption. I looked at the talkpage and can't see anything particularly problematic (indeed, surely listing possibly unreliable sources is a good thing?) whilst Bacondrum doesn't appear to be edit warring or anything else on the article itself - infact they haven't edited it much at all recently and the last time they removed content was nearly a month ago and actually restored the article to a version by Crossroads. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Overall, that's my sense, too. Though, as usual, Black Kite phrases it better than I could. El_C 14:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• My proposal is not for the recent conduct alone. It is for the years-long pattern of disruption on the topic of which the recent activity shows the same issues are present; tendentious and misleading argumentation on the talk page coupled with frivolous ANI reports of "opponents" is still disruption even if one doesn't mess with the article itself (yet), though he is clearly building up to doing so. Considering he was already warned at the first ANI and given a 3 month block from the topic at the second, and that he opened this thread on me, this is where we're at. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Crossroads, that may sidestep the point of this being a rather slow trickle recently so as to be actionable, as opposed to a steady stream, not to mention anything torrential... El_C 14:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is a long winded personal attack, look how desperate he is to have me topic banned!!! For what, for daring to discuss issues with his article? I'm absolutely certain I've done nothing wrong this time round, I've asked to discuss sources? OMG, someone get the noose! Crossroads is being a bully and WP:OWNing the page, end of story. Bacondrum 22:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Look at crossroads edit history, he certainly spends a lot of time here trying to get people blocked, fella isn't even an admin. Bacondrum 22:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Whatever that's supposed to mean. Clearly you have too strong of feelings on this topic. As for "owning", there's no evidence of that on my part. You, however, have previously ground the topic down to a dicdef and engaged in ownership to keep it that way (documented at the last ANI); the latest argumentation is more of the same. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Restored comment of mine which Bacondrum removed. [201] Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• This should boomerang, Crossroads is WP:OWNing the page, he is using my past behavior in an ad hominem manner to attack me rather discuss content, if you look at history of the Cancel Culture article you'll see changes by different editors are routinely reverted by the Crossroads to keep the article unchanged. I came to the talk page with issues and received an ad hominem response, a personal attack, they've then called for me to be topic banned for what? For daring to discuss sources? From WP:NPA What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." None have been provided because my only crime other than past behavior was to ask to discuss issues with sources in a civil manner. Crossroads over zealous desire see other editors blocked should also be addressed, the level of participation at ANI despite not being an admin appears to be malicious. Bacondrum 23:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack by C. because the statement was strongly supported by links. You are right that people should not discuss each other on article talk pages. But a lot more importantly, they should not bring each other to ANI instead of peacefully resolving their differences on article talk page, and especially if they had was a history of previous similar discussions on ANI, as you do. By bringing this here you are making a disservice to yourself and waste time of other contributors. This will only get you blocked or topic banned. My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

if you look at history of the Cancel Culture article you'll see changes by different editors are routinely reverted by the Crossroads to keep the article unchanged. I have done nothing improper of the sort. Got any diffs for this accusation or is this just WP:ASPERSIONS? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice the statement Crossroads over zealous desire see other editors blocked should also be addressed, the level of participation at ANI despite not being an admin appears to be malicious.. A remarkable accusation considering Bacondrum filed this report. Bacondrum was also here last week after seemingly threatening another editor with a block over a content dispute. I genuinely believe there may be a WP:CIR issue here, but at the same time, Bacondrum seems clever enough to slide each time they end up on these forums, so they must be doing something right. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite and El_C You're both fair admins who I respect, I'll follow whatever advice you give here. I feel like I've improved and no longer edit in a problematic fashion, but I'm happy to be pulled up by you guys if I'm doing the wrong thing. Was I wrong to question the sourcing in this article? Bacondrum 00:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem is that you've questioned sources that are fine. For example, you say that Zoe Thomas, "What is the cost of 'cancel culture'?", BBC News, 8 October 2020, isn't an RS for Cancel culture because it's "opinion and analysis". In fact, it's a good source for that article. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, it is an "analysis" piece, but it's also perfectly good for the use it's been given. Bacondrum, whilst some of the sources in that list clearly are op-eds, not all of them are, so it might be worth being a little more careful there. Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I made it clear in the post that I wanted to discuss the sources, not remove them and was open to the idea that I may very well be wrong about some: "So I hope we can have a calm and civil discussion about sourcing in this article. I've been told that vague complaining is useless, so I'm going to get very specific - I'm sure I've got some of this wrong and am happy to be corrected and discuss." This pile on by the anti-bacondrum squad is a straight up attack, it's why so many editors walk away from this project, it's just vindictive BS. Bacondrum 02:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support, Suggestion to Bacondrum (Edit: I'm going to recast this as my observations of what might be going wrong, and a suggestion for Bacondrum to cool it) not only because of the past/current problematic behavior being virtually indistinguishable, but because Bacondrum's response here shows no understanding of what they're doing wrong and no willingness to change. Nothing about Crossroads statement was a personal attack against Bacondrum, yet Bacondrum still seems to be putting in a Herculean effort to turn the tide and somehow continue with this frivolous report against Crossroads, attributing malice, harassment, etc. etc. As another editor noted, prior claims of redemption and apologies have been undermined by later behavior so many times, only a sincere and self-aware expression of contrition should be accepted as persuasive, and BD has not even come close to that. Indeed, they're still attacking Crossroads here and mocking them. "fella is not even an admin" is not a nice statement, and not especially relevant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note to reviewing admin I'd point out to any admin reviewing this that Wikieditor19920 does not appear to have had any part in this dispute (they have never edited the article or its talkpage), but does have a history of conflict with Bacondrum including at least two ANI reports [202] [203], the latter of which saw Wikieditor sanctioned, and you may wish to weigh this comment given that backstory. I am going to warn Wikieditor19920 that attempting to get an editor sanctioned purely that you have had a previous dispute with them is not a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This is only my input having had previous negative interactions with this user for similar reasons. But I'll reframe my vote as a suggestion to Bacondrum on how to move forward, and hopefully that will resonate more deeply than supporting sanctions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite, it also struck me as a blatant attempt to get revenge, that's why I've not responded too him at all. Having said that, I can see that I'm too quick to come to ANI and I do bring a bit of the drama on myself, I'll seek other remedies before ANI in the future. Thanks again. Bacondrum 00:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Other than a frivolous (and ultimately self-defeating) ANI thread, I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of a problem by Bacondrum, who identified some potentially problematic sources (along with some that aren't so problematic, indeed). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• This thread is just silly. Crossroads should’ve done a better job at assuming good faith in the discussion that prompted this section. Bacondrum should learn to treat ANI as a venue of last resort, not a first resort at the first sign of trouble, and is further not doing themselves any favours by their commentary in this thread. I wouldn’t say the complaint is “frivolous”, but it’s not actionable either (imo). Maybe an admin should just close this whole section as going nowhere productive, before one of the parties does say something to incur themselves sanctions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I just want this removed [[204]] lest the whole section becomes a discussion about me rather than content. I did not come here seeking sanctions, I have contributed to talk in good faith, we are supposed to discuss content not other editors, I thought that was policy? If we could just get back to discussing content at the articles talk page I'd be over the moon, I don't want the discussion to be about me and it is a firm policy that we should only be discussing content. If Crossroads can focus on content and not me I'd be more than happy to move on. Bacondrum 21:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Another editor pointed out that your "discussion of sources" doesn't come off as serious, and it's difficult not to agree. You are just rehashing the same arguments basically you made in several other sections on the same talk page. In this latest instance, you just listed all of the sources in the article and offered largely the same frivolous complaints about all of them (e.g. Who is this? Who is that? UNDUE). You're asking "who is this" about noted opinion columnists in prominent papers like the NYT and made the sweeping, and incorrect, statement that op-eds are not usable or WP:DUE in any case. See WP:RSEDITORIAL. Basically, it looks like you're trying to throw whatever you can at the wall to whittle down the article and create obstacles to fleshing it out, i.e. genuine improvement. This seems to be based on your own dislike the subject per your own words, and other editors are finding this approach exhausting. I don't know why this behavior is being written off, but I agree with Crossroads it's a more serious problem than others are acknowleding. I assume you'll only "move on" until the next time you end up bringing someone to ANI or threatening them with an EW template or some other sort of escalation tactic, because as I said in my vote, this is the same pattern I've seen with you to a T over and over. My suggestion is this: I see that you've objected to the usage of those sources in prior talk page sections. If the objections didn't stick that time, raising them again and again in a much longer post is not going to accomplish anything. It was probably not 100% appropriate to comment on behavioral issues on a talk page forum. But you were also being disruptive, so I don't think ANI was appropriate for you either. I'd agree should be closed without sanctions and hopefully with a lesson learned about dropping the stick, something I can recognize and understand having struggled with it too. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'll just move on, there are other editors who are discussing content rather than me, we can move on and discuss the sourcing in a civil manner. I'll just ignore any further assumptions of bad faith and comments made about me. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Bacondrum 00:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No foundation. No reason. A solution that tries to manufacture a problem. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Close this whole discussion. It was unhelpful from the start and still unhelpful. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Asqueladd point of view in Spain

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User says that "It is the generic one not presuming gender" in "King of Spain" infobox label and erase some image climate of Spain and by some reason puts this text: "Undid revision 1010126176 by Eightbenny (talk) Discuss in the talk page.". User is likely from Spain. Please, revert that edits. --Eightbenny (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute at this stage. The proper place to discuss would be Talk:Spain, where neither has engaged so far. To be fair it should probably use whatever the current title is. So to take another example it's Queen Elizabeth II (UK and Commonwealth) [and on her death it will be King Charles (whatever the number)]. And I don't know if all monarchies have adopted less gender restrictive rules (UK has, me thinks, but I have no clue about Spain) - so it's also more likely to be King in the future... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

But because typical user's tone I consider more aproppriate make a request. --Eightbenny (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the edit summaries I don't see any issue of tone or uncivility. ANI is for issues of behaviour. Except for failing to use the talk page, I don't see one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem here is not Asqueladd but Eightbenny. He wants to edit-war. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)}

@Tbhotch: Please, show that I am "guilty", if you makes allegations as just because if I invite you that not fall in WP:UNCIVIL. Greetings!. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: user justs makes superfluous justifications. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the proof that Spain article haves many issues. --Eightbenny (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear enough in my first comment: "The proper place to discuss would be Talk:Spain, where neither has engaged so far." So go have a talk there instead of reverting each other, because yes, reverting each other, no matter who is right, usually IS edit warring. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

For me, is inappropriate manage that type of users just in talk page. I believe. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You see it?, they were even two biased users. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Just informing that I've filed a sockpuppet investigation on Eightbenny Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janitor102. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware of that possibility. Of course if these suspicions are founded then we should let that process run it's course. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: You are welcome. Eightbenny seems to have indeed been blocked as sockpuppet. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Guilty of being a sockpuppet of another editor, of violating the BLP policy,[205][206][207] of edit-warring against WP:CATEGORY (as requested at WP:CATV) [208][209][210]. Shall I continue? Because as a matter of fact you "seem" very incompetent when speaking in English, yet you know about several of our policies and guidelines despite the fact that you have been here for some weeks. How stupid do you think I am? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't known, because but you edit few and in ethnic pages just to camouflage disruptive editing in "sockpuppets". --Eightbenny (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What does that even mean? M.Bitton (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Tbhotch is in my point of view, a biased user. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The OP of this thread also opened WP:EWN#User:Tbhotch reported by User:Eightbenny (Result: ). I blocked from mainspace for 48 hours but the SPI does look like a match to me based on page-level editing (I haven't looked deeper). --Izno (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Are there enough aspersions and personal attacks to warrant a stronger remedy against OP? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please, put attention on issue. You're welcome. --Eightbenny (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Beaneater00 - When did it become ok to use racial slurs in usernames?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Bean eater" is a widely-known racist slur (see also Beaner). Why on earth is an editor called Beaneater00 not already blocked simply for the name? If one assumes good faith about the choice of name being possibly a reference to simply enjoying eating beans, the name itself will still be offensive to many people. This user is actively engaged in editing far-right US political topics (including arguing about the designation of America First Political Action Conference as White Nationalist), which suggests that they are very much aware of the offensiveness of the name. Mo Billings (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mo Billings: The proper place is WP:UAA (where, with a justification such as the one you give above, a block would likely be forthcoming). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The old name of the Braves was the Boston Beaneaters, so it's not hard to see another entirely anodyne explanation. Regardless, UAA is for unambiguous violations; the proper venue for a discussion is WP:RFC/N. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad they changed it to something that no one could construe as racist. Mo Billings (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering their anti-semetic "jokes" a few months back, it's really no surprise. UAA won't be worth anything in this case. They never should've been unblocked. CUPIDICAE💕 00:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah well with the above it seemed rather unambiguous to me. Wasn't aware the Braves were once called the Beaneaters (was aware they were formerly in Boston); apparently that is a century old though and it lasted barely more than a decade, though, so the racist explanation is more likely... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the only association in my mind with "beaneater" is that it's slang for someone from Boston, a.k.a. "Beantown". I've never heard of it being a slur for Mexicans. I believe that last time I head it used to mean a Bostonian was on an episode of M*A*S*H. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Recognition of the racist connotation is helped by having lived or worked in U.S. states like California or Texas (the territory of which were once part of Mexico). I'm sure that term and phrase has spread over the last four years. — Neonorange (Phil) 04:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

See Boston baked beans for longtime association with Boston before being taken up as a racial slur. — Neonorange (Phil) 23:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for the reopen @Davey2010:, but there are more than enough concerns about this users choice of name and editing to warrant an indeff. Since being somehow unblocked by Arbcom after previously being blocked for similar disruptive editing, they've made very little useful edits, mostly pushing POV, edit warring when their edits are reverted, or trolling/ messing around, here are just a few examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and admitting to being anti-semitic. There's also this bizarre edit where they randomly add ">This user comes from Israel." after another users comment in a discussion they're not even a part of, these user boxes, and being banned from wikipedia's discord server with the reason "alt-right". Even disregarding all of that, they're evading the block of their previous account User:Tablekitten, which was blocked back in 2018 for vandalism; it has the same topic interest and the same name as Beaneater00's discord account. I've blocked them, review is welcome. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 02:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse block --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'd forgotten this user. It looks like I declined two UTRS unblock requests. Be interested in hearing ArbCom's reasoning for unblocking. Anyone want to propose a CBAN? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, Yes that would be highly appreciated, this dumb saga needs to end, they are an obvious net negative. I actually emailed arbcom asking them to re-indeff this user since they're the ones that unblocked them and they seem like the type to harass, but they declined and referred it back to the community, so I decided to block. This and other blocks/unblocks/other events appear to be part of an ongoing fracture between Arbcom and the Functionaries, which appears to be something people are aware of but are saying nothing about. I'm angry and getting tired of it. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 03:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  I am also curious as to what reasoning convinced ArbCom to undo a CheckUser account block of someone who had been evidently editing disruptively (from my brief review of their contributions at the time of the original CU block). For what it's worth, I endorse re-blocking. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  If it was a CU block they were undoing, it may have been on technical grounds only. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Community Ban for Beaneater00

Since this was floated around above and no one proposed it while I was gone for the day. Per the evidence above and the Arbcom unblock, I believe this user should appeal to the community if they are to ever be unblocked in order to prevent further gaming of the system and more wasted time. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 04:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm actually neutral on whether they are CBANNED I actually oppose the CBAN, since appealing to ARBCOM would have been reasonable on their side and not indicative of a "gaming appeal" - I endorse the block since coupled with their disruptive behaviour, some of their comments indicate their name probably, though not certainly is meant offensively, I'm just not sure I feel it needs the extra protection, when any unblocking admin will be considering all the facets, not just the CU component as appears to be the case with ARBCOM here. I'm going to specifically note that I would not consider their name to be a "blatant breach" and would not force an editor with a similar name, editing in GF, to change. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Another editor might claim Tuscan heritage or a fondness for a particular painting or book of poetry. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• strong support Wikipedia shouldn't host racist, anti-semetic editors. I don't know why so many are eager to explain away the username of someone who has repeatedly made anti-semetic comments, edited with a heavy POV skewing toward racism and outright trolled. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Assuming good faith isn't a suicide pact. Arbcom unblocking is irrelevant and I'm guessing they weren't fully aware of the gravity of the situation and their extensive history. CUPIDICAE💕 12:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Seems unnecessary. Plenty of blocks like this (and 'worse') are regular admin blocks, and I'm sure (hope?) admins are competent enough to assess whether circumstances have changed and if an unblock is appropriate without needing a referral to the community. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per WP:NONAZIS and the diffs linked by moneytrees above. I may have been inclined to AGF on the username under different circumstances, but in the context of dog-whistling so loud it's giving me tinnitus, I simply cannot. Someone who creates a userbox like this one (see the wikilinks) is not compatible with a collaborative editing environment. Suggesting that the US is a puppet state of Israel that is going to war for it isn't even veiled antisemitism – it's outright repetition of an antisemitic conspiracy theory. And that's just one example for the far-right POV-pushing and trolling Beaneater00 has been involved in. I do not, and can not, know if the arbcom-unblock was justified on technical grounds. But I do strongly feel that if they want to return, they should demonstrate to the community – and not to anyone else – that they are willing and able to comply with the basic norms that they have deliberately and consistently disregarded thus far. --Blablubbs|talk 22:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per WP:NONAZIS. The diffs speak for themselves. ~ HAL333 05:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per Moneytrees and Blabbubs. It need be said, and it need be said loudly, that racists should not be at liberty here. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per above. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support CBAN Zero chance they will be a productive editor. P-K3 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Michaelstarwolf9 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He has disrupted Wikipedia for months, yet he's only blocked for 72 hours! Based on his behavior, an indefinite block is in order. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, this editor only has about 100 edits. Admittedly, some were self promotional and some were about a non-notable talk show. But unless you can provide diffs of severe disruption that I am not seeing, the 72 hour block looks like a good first step. A longer block is easy to implement if disruption continues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to adjust behavior, not be punitive. I see some good-faith editing where the user merely needs guidance rather than to be forever blocked (and did a good job with the start of The Patrick Star Show (TV series) article). The only issue seems to be on that Epic edit, and worse comes to worse, we can apply a page block for them on that page only. Nate • (chatter) 06:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Update User has since been indef'd with TPA removed. User does not appear amenable to behavior adjustment. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sadly have to agree; I would've helped if they had waited it out, but this would've upped it to an indef no matter what to me. Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

J.Turner99

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

J.Turner99 has been given an extremely specific reminder that 3RR is not an entitlement ([211][212]) with regards to their edits to Beyond Order and has continued to revert after a warning. This is three contiguous series of reverts within six hours, most with incorrect edit summaries, and an indication that the user will continue reverting further ([213]). Attempts to engage them in discussion (User talk:Bilorv#Greetings) see them completely missing the point. They have made no attempt to reach out to either of the users they are reverting, or to begin a talk page discussion. During the writing of this report, the user overtly breached 3RR with a fourth non-contiguous revert: [214].

The user has an intractable case of it always being somebody else's fault: Why did you not leave a warning on the other user's page?[215], I am not implying that my edits are or are not contructive[216] etc. This points to a battleground mentality which is furthered by: their repeated filings of spurious claims of edit warring, sockpuppetry and warning templates when in a conflict with somebody; refusal to hear the reason for an AfD redirection; their recording of two negative comments about me by another user without permission on their userpage and their edit warring. I am also seeing a hat-collecting tendency and an unusual tendency to advocate for the unblocking of users they have no relation to. This list discounts all actions which I believe a newcomer could reasonably make or that seem to be made in good faith, except where it's part of a pattern.

Lots of editors have tried to engage with the user in good faith, such as Cassiopeia, Sro23 (here), myself (here, here, here). The user's behavior has not substantially improved from any of these conversations, from what I can tell.

Possible solutions I see are a topic ban on American Politics (the user is aware), a temporary block for edit warring, or possibly some series of IBANs (though this seems to involve at least three users: myself, NorthBySouthBaranof and Acousmana). I am not the first user to suggest sanctioning: for instance, JayBeeEll suggested a block in February here.

I've struck one part upon noticing it was completely incorrect and the comment was made by another user, albeit directly on J.Turner99's userpage. I apologise to J.Turner99 for the mistake. — Bilorv (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

References

— Bilorv (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Warned. Just a general warning, for now. El_C 21:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Here the user threatens to make their fifth revert in eight hours (I think I should revert). Is it not uncontroversial to block for at least 24 hours for a WP:3RR violation? — Bilorv (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have significant concerns about J.Turner99's ability to operate in the American Politics topic area, for the reasons Bilorv outlines. J.Turner99 combines some typical newbie traits (cluelessness and enthusiasm) with a battleground approach focused on advancing a particular point of view. (Although this is not sanctionable, they also have a deeply grating misunderstanding of what it means to assume good faith.) I have reviewed their edits on several occasions when they've come across my watchlist; I think their work outside of American Politics has been fine (appropriate vandal-fighting, appropriate copy-editing). A medium-length topic ban might allow them to continue to develop their skills and experience as an editor while avoiding conflict. --JBL (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Fwiw I would also support a politics topic ban, since that's where most of the disruption can be traced back to. Sro23 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by J.Turner99

All I have to say is: Ref 2: I just cited a single source as an example. Thank you for the apology Bilorv, easily done. I believe I have spoken elsewhere, I have nothing more to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Turner99 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

6-month WP:AP2 TBAN now in effect (AE)

El_C 02:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, they didn't take that well, to put it mildly. Now blocked indefinitely. P-K3 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AmericanPropagandaHunter and NOTHERE POV editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• AmericanPropagandaHunter
• Uyghur genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From the name of the account and their edit history, I believe this is a NOTHERE POV user [217]. I suspect this is a sock based on their 36 edits and history eg: [218]

This is very similar to the recent problem with PailSimon and their POV edits re: Uyghurs and Taiwan are very similar [219].  // Timothy :: talk  02:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. The POV tendency is just a common occurrence, though, so no connection to PailSimon can be established this way. El_C 02:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I've also upgraded to WP:ECP (expires on the 25th) due to this recent influx of disruption from confirmed accounts. El_C 03:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Exhausted-Sinologist and potential block evasion

Hi guys! There's a potential that block evasion may be occurring with a recently created account (3:39 UTC on 11 March 2021), Exhausted-Sinologist. Not sure if I should post at WP:SPI or comment here, but the account is commenting along the lines as the user that was just blocked (the account's contributions so far are 1 and 2). Can anybody look into this to verify whether they are the same account or different? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Yup. El_C 04:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Should I place sockpuppetry-related templates on each of the user pages, or is that best left to admins? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That's best left to admins. El_C 14:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:BirTawilMonarchy

User:BirTawilMonarchy is a WP:PROMO-only account. Its only purpose is to promote its supposed claim to the territory of Bir Tawil. It should be terminated with extreme prejudice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Their majesty has been notified, and their draft article Draft:The Monarchy of Bir Tawil has been MfD'd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A similar recent MfD was User:Heymikeyatl/sandbox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Heymikeyatl notified as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely and speedy deleted as WP:SPAM. El_C 15:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Danke. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: The editor has returned as User:Troubled guy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's protection time. El_C 22:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Atley

Please can some admin review the contribs of Atley (talk · contribs).

I have blanked their userpage twice as WP:UP#PROMO/WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, but I see now that they are also creating an autobiog draft (Draft:Vipin Atley) and a COI draft (Draft:Antappante Athbudha Pravarthikal (Miracles of Antappan) - 2021). Looks to me like WP:NOTHERE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think they might actually be notable (there is certainly coverage) but I've nuked the draft because it was simply a copyright violation, and of course they shouldn't be writing their own bio. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Removing reliably sourced content and replacement with unsourced material at Leva Patel by User:Hpatel100

At the page Leva Patel, User:Hpatel100 has been removing reliably sourced content and replacing them with unsourced content [220] [221] [222]. The user was was warned several times as seen on their talk page [223] [224], as well as the fact that since they are editing a caste page, there are stricter rules due to community ordered sanctions [225]. However, the editor is being unresponsive, and will not provide an edit summary for their edits. Action must be taken by an administrator to stop these disruptive edits. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Per WP:CASTE, with the usual WP:ARBIPA overlap. El_C 15:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

IP User disruptive behavior

193.52.24.13
Talk:Rent_control_in_the_United_States

IP user has been attempting to WP:Bludgeon their opinion into the article for 2 days. they have previously engaged in edit wars on this page and has been blocked for this in the past. Their block expired and they are back to disrupting the page. Within 2 days of starting conversation about their desired change- they opened a DRN case, which was summarily closed by me as opened too soon. They have been advised that their behavior is not conducive to change.

When I closed their DRN, they then came to my talk page to try and convince me of their point. After being told I don't have an opinion or an interest in forming one, they have continued to try to beat the other editors, and myself, into submission- including comparing people who don't agree with them to flat-earth conspiracy theorists [226]. Ironically- after being incredibly rude to their fellow editors many times,[227] [228] [229] they find it insulting to be told they are insulting others.

They are also telling others to assume good faith [230] despite not doing so themselves in the same comment (assuming that any disagreement with their "obvious" conclusions is editing to ideology over truth.

I am requesting this IP be banned from editing this article as they seem to have an unhealthy fixation on a single statement supported by WP:RS combined with a refusal to engage in productive discourse to find a compromise. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much to say here. I have written at length my thoughts on the talk page of the article. Thank you.193.52.24.13 (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The IP also frequently calls other editors vandals: [231] [232] [233] [234], and we just had an exchange at Talk:Rent_control_in_the_United_States#A_Philosophical_Reminder in which the IP stated that "The article you mention does not imply that there is a consensus among economists. You know that.", essentially accusing me of misrepresenting the source. The relevant quote from the source in question is 'the economics profession has reached a rare consensus'. It's difficult to keep the focus on content in the face of such incivility and disconnection with the plain language of the relevant sources. - MrOllie (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing more to add regarding this attempt to silence me. The conversation can be followed on the article's talk page. As it is, I think the article in question has a serious problem of neutrality. 193.52.24.13 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No one wants to silence you. We just want you to engage in civil discourse. To find a compromise with you. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

John wickly: another apparent sock and more promotional Adityaram drafts

Very persistent attempts to create the promotional article Adityaram. Originally deleted in 2013 and 2014 per AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adityaram. Article repeatedly deleted or moved to draft space in 2021. Also created in other places including Help talk:URL [235], Help:URL [236], and Draft:Draft:Adityaram. ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059#Shaanvisuresh and article moves, resulted in sock blocks of SPAs user:Shaanvisuresh and user:Sharinisuresh, salting of article (my mistake, salting of article was earlier, by user:SuperMarioMan), and semi of draft. New SPA user:John wickly has now recreated the material in Draft:Adityaram (producer) (twice) and Draft talk:Adityaram (once user had enough edits to become autoconfirmed).

It does not look like this is going to end without salting the drafts. Requesting deletion and salting of the new drafts, and block of user:John wickly, Pinging admins who cleaned this up last time: user:El C, user:Johnuniq, user:331dot, user:Newslinger. Meters (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I've rounded all the remaining corners. Let me know if I missed any. El_C 22:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks. Meters (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

See "middle name" above! El_C 22:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Behavioural issue at AE or ANI?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lilipo25 is currently at AE, based on these diffs

• Transphobic rant and abuse of others
• Doubling down on it

Technically we could use Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality here (so filing it at AE was not incorrect), but I would say this is more a straight NOTHERE issue which should probably be dealt with here? I am involved so won't take part. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Progressively more aggressive comments by IP editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A recent IP editor seems to be getting progressively more enraged in their comments on talk pages, following interactions with multiple editors, is now attempting to avoid blocks by IP-hopping. See this revision for some history.

Addresses so far:

• 2603:8001:641:986E:C882:8FCB:EEB4:CF0C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- blocked by Fastily, block extended by me
• 2603:8001:641:986E:9D8A:6F71:1AE:3BD5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- blocked by me, and rangeblocked at /64
• 23.241.175.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- blocked by me

I'd appreciate it if other admins could keep an eye out for this editor re-appearing. -- The Anome (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the articles and user pages in question. --Jayron32 15:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Racist rants and WP:NOTHERE edits by User:Strayamateyeboi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Strayamateyeboi (talk · contribs)

The reported user has disrupted some articles about the languages.[237][238][239][240][241][242]. After I warned them on their talk page; they posted these racist and hateful stuff on my talk page.[243][244] Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. Please hide those edits on my talk page. And since the reported account looks like a sleeper account, I would suggest checkuser. Wario-Man ^talk 05:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Indef This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Should that somehow change, they can post an unblock request. This sort of behaviour isn't remotely acceptable. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  I support OP's request for revdel of the posts on their talk page. One look will tell you why. Narky Blert (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Revdel is  Done Daniel (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

With the checkuser tools, I see no other accounts on their immediate range, somewhat surprisingly. --Yamla (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SepticSociety

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• SepticSociety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't know what this person's problem with skeptics is, but they certainly are not here to build an encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure seems like NOTHERE. They just add their unsourced opinion despite warnings. And "septic" is probably mockery of "skeptic". Crossroads ^-talk- 06:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Obvious parody of The Skeptics Society is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Mate I don’t know what you’ve got against me, I’m just using a bit of discretion in the introductions of some articles. You do enough of it you fucken hypocrite. SepticSociety (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That's kind of harsh for just misspelling fucking. EEng 03:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Navonedu

Current issue is no different than the earlier report which was made on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#Navonedu's_unrepentant_disruption.

This user is still dedicated to thwarting any attempt made to improve Atif Aslam and is frequently terming any removal of his added puffery as "vandalism".[245][246] I am requesting an indef block for this clear-cut case of WP:CIR. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

After the above report, I have been reported by this user on the noticeboard that deals only with vandals. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Their reversions claiming 'vandalism' continue. Slywriter (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Incidents Regarding Uncivil behavior by User Warshy

Dear all,

In interactions with Warshy, Warshy made several less than civil comments NPA. As well as aspersions. Personal attacks As well as attacked another wikipedian Newmila.

Blessings,

Yaakov W.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Wa. (talk • contribs) 03:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

References

I noticed this dispute about the article yesterday so will comment here. I see no direct personal attack above, but I agree that one of the edit summaries could have been more civil and that one of the above comments included too much possibly unsavory details as if it was posted on a forum. On the other hand Warshy is right that content disputes don't involve contacting editors privately by phone and that scholarly sources should be used for the article. They've also been on Wikipedia a long time editing many articles, not only that particular one, it would be a good idea to try to benefit from their experience. —PaleoNeonate – 09:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, "[o]n the other hand Warshy is right that content disputes don't involve contacting editors privately by phone and that scholarly sources should be used for the article." Where did that question arise? Firestar464 (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's very important but the invitation to use email (link is after redaction): Special:Permalink/1011705321#Opportunity for collaboration, the other invitation was Special:Permalink/1011603826#Opportunity for collaboration, it was actually for a Zoom conference, not phone, it seems, although phone numbers were shared. —PaleoNeonate – 13:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a new user/editor here, Ibadibam also already asked for help on his behalf on a different page. To me this user looks like a WP:SPA who is here to edit strictly for religious issues that are the interest of the religious organization he seems to belong to. In any case, his whole endeavor in the main page where we are interacting is to introduce religious POV to the subject. I have little patience for what I perceive as blatant religious POV. The entire history of his editing on that page should be looked at by uninvolved editors, as well as mine, of course, and the continuation of his alleged "overhaul" of the page should continue only under the guidance of editors and/or admins with experience in the religious POV area in Wikipedia. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I'll pipe up since I've been named...I agree that some of warshy's comments have been unnecessarily denigrating to Yaakov Wa.'s religious community and their beliefs. At the same time, Yaakov Wa. is clearly editing from that POV, to the detriment of the encyclopedia's neutrality. In terms of the edit warring, warshy is not being overly heavy-handed, nor is Yaakov Wa. editing in bad faith. I have found it difficult to follow this dispute due to the frequency and volume of edits by Yaakov Wa. While some of this editor's contributions are helpful, a great deal of them are not up to encyclopedic standards due to issues around verifiability, POV and layout. I think there's an opportunity for Yaakov Wa. to become a great wikipedian, but needs guidance on what is and isn't appropriate for this encyclopedia. As for the current dispute, there is too little productive discussion and too much edit warring to even understand what's happening. Ibadibam (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:LouiseFeb1974 on BLPs

User:LouiseFeb1974 has continued to add contentious and unsourced or poorly sourced information to various biographies. They often include sources that have no mention of the subject. Recent examples: here and here. The editor has been warned by others on their talk page but has not responded, and they have been discussed on this board before. Can an administrator please take a look and see if it would be appropriate to block this editor from editing BLPs? 68.224.72.132 (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I dealt with Louise before. It's another WP:ICANTHEARYOU case. I know Suffusion of Yellow is particularly concerned about these and urgently wanting action to make users aware of their talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Their edits aren't tagged as mobile. Desktop should display the usual "you have new messages" link at the top, unless there's something I don't know about. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I take that back. Just ran through all the skins, and the MinervaNeue and Timeless skins do not seem to show the banner. I don't know how popular those skins are (most people don't change defaults), and there's no way to find out what skin someone is using without asking them. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day ⋅

Convenience link - Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day
Please see the recent edit summaries to understand the problem. Escalating tit-for-tat COI edit warring, "outing" of people's real names - Could protect 30/500 and/or semi-protect, and block the warring parties, but I've no idea which version should be in place when the music stops - Arjayay (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Jeez, what a mess. I've rev-deleted the edit summaries, ECP'd the page, moved it back to what I think is the right verion and removed what I think is the problematic section. Haven't blocked anyone, but since they're both SPAs on that article and not ECP'd they won't be editing anyway. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• OK, now I've been asked by User:MrsPhinch to restore to a different version, but now I'm looking at self-promo here, as what is apparently that user's name (or the name of someone they are editing in favour of) appears multiple times in that version of the article (mostly written by herself). Would appreciate more eyes here, tbh. Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite pls check out the talk page as well, the last two sections there start with WP:OUTING, so should probably be revdel'd. Thanks! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• There's a pretty clear legal threat here. --bonadea contributions talk 12:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Uh, yeah - that's fairly unambiguous. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like there is an interpersonal feud among SPAs going back twelve years playing out on that article. I support ECP, and encourage uninvolved editors to watchlist the article as I have done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's quite clear that there are Ownership issues going on with MrsPhinch and that article, and a massive slew of SPAs and internecine feuding going on. One option for now is actually to semi-the article, that would solve the SPA and sockpuppet issues at an admitted risk of if one side has long term accounts they would be sole editors of it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Then it needs some good-faith editors to put it on their watchlists, as Cullen328 has done. I groaned inwardly when I saw the title because I thought that this would be a battle between people with different opinions about abortion, but see that it is simply some childish playground fight that can be settled by following independent reliable sources. Why do people have to carry such things over to the world's foremost encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:ACCESS violations again at RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 1) and RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)

Following an absolute pile on that has included death threats, the talkpage of at least one of the articles being reldev'd and a number of users being blocked [247], User talk:Caroline Quentin, User talk:Irin161, User talk:2A02:C7D:8A4D:2D00:1D2F:DF1A:5351:C2AD) the page protection preventing the edit warring on the two pages has now expired and multiple editors have reverted back to edits which are not supported by MOS:ACCESS, MOS:DTAB, MOS:TABLE including gross violations of MOS:COLOUR, WP:SYNTHESIS of show results which cannot/are not supported by third-party reliable sources and ignoring repeated requests to engage with discussion.

See the mess that was the talkpage for Drag Race UK (series 2). I am at a loss for what to do here - I was under the impression that MOS was not negotiable.

• This edit by Ethan MP, though to be fair they have not previously been warned for making these changes.
• This edit by 2a01:4c8:c8c:5d55:7d57:5c29:4fa7:1d98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) adds information that is solely dictated by colour and a gross violation of MOS:COLOUR
• This edit by Messinwithbruce who has previously been warned by someone for BRD and left an edit summary that stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF ("Needs to be consistent with ALL other seasons. Either change all of them or don’t change them at all.") Note that Messinwithbruce also uploaded unsourced/improperly sourced copyright images relating to this subject and has previously been blocked for unsourced/poorly sourced editing
• This edit by 2a01:4c8:c8c:5d55:7d57:5c29:4fa7:1d98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that smacks of its fine no one has complained before so its fine per their edit summary "They are not rules, just guidelines. This is the format that has worked for many years, and nobody has had an issue with. The majority of articles on Wiki use abbreviations, so if you change this you’ll need to change all of those too".

1. Tagging Billwebster91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who previously engaged in similar edit warring and failed to respond to warnings [248], [249]
2. Tagging Thijslandsmeer who also reverted MOS changes and was warned here

The same situation happened at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_5) with a variety of editors. There was a discussion on that talkpage too: Talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_5)#Accessible_Table_Format that has fallen on deaf ears.

To confirm there are several issues:

1. Wikipedia editors treating reality TV shows like current news and therefore creating WP:FANCRUFT tables full of WP:SYNTHESIS ("high" and "low" positions are mentioned in the show but "safe" with/without critiques come from individual' editors interpretation and are not reliably sourced.
2. There are multiple violations of MOS:COLOUR which impact visually impaired users icluding the use of multiple shades of the same colour (light red, dark red), failure to use high contrast e.g. white text on dark background and use of greens and reds in the same table which impact negatively on colourblind editors. There is also issues with colour being used as the only means of conveying information
3. Failure to adhere with MOS:ACCESS, MOS:ABBREV, MOS:TABLE.

Everyone who reverts says all the articles need consistency but there's never any policy or guidance reasons given even though multiple times I have shown how the current status does not meet wiki guidlines. Note all this refers to a previous report filed earlier this week too - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Trolling_of_talk_pages_and_threats Users: RandomCanadian, Deepfriedokra, Firefly have all been involved in the discussions on the talkpage - helping for firefight the situation. Have notified all involved parties. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Messinwithbruce now blocked for edit warring to get accessibility-violating content in. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  I have protected both articles again. --Jayron32 19:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  This editor's userpage was deleted as an attack page; they've been blocked before for BLP violations; I see a bunch of edit warring warnings; and now this ... seems to me like a candidate for a TBAN from BLPs. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• What a silly charade this is turning in to. I'm honestly not sure of the best path forward here, given the strength of feeling from some editors around having these incredibly detailed, borderline fancrufty tables in articles, and (more concerningly) edit warring over the minutiae therein and rushing to update them when episodes air. I think we may need a broader RfC on such things to get clear consensus on (a) whether to have them (personally I would say 'no'), and (b) the general shape of them if we must have them and ensuring they comply with accessibility standards. The rushing-to-update is adequately covered elsewhere, but I fear without a clear consensus to point to we'll forever be pushing a boulder up a hill against those who wish to cram tables into reality TV articles and wasting sysop time. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 19:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

On a content note, I agree that the Drag Race tables are super crufty and a flashpoint for disruption. I would be more than happy to see them all removed, or at least seriously reexamined/reformed. I don't know quite enough about how the show works to propose a solution, but would love to see some kind of RfC on it. AdmiralEek (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all of the sentiments about this. I think there should be a wide ranging RFC supporting accessible tables because to be honest it applies all of reality tv. Also I think there should be proper sanctions for those who don't follow MOS... its very clear and shouldn't be up for debate. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think sanctioning people who don't follow most of the MOS is a good idea, after all much of MOS is nitpicking nonsense that doesn't relate to the real world at all (and sometimes actively makes our articles look daft), but ACCESS is the one that is definitely an exception to that. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to confirm - I agree - I meant specifically on accessibility. I don't have an issue with sparing use of colours but its so tricky to get people to follow the rules! ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• There aren't many things that irritate me more than people who violate ACCESS after being repeatedly told why they shouldn't do it. I admit to having a lower tolerance of this that many other disruptive editing practices. Also, these reality show articles simply look hideous and unprofessional. The tables are bad enough but the multi-coloured text andd violent pink borders in the episode list look like a Geocities website from around 1997. Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star (series 1) (which I've also just fixed the table access issues on) is even worse. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not people's private webpages and I wouldn't object to sending everything monochrome and saying "sorry - you simply can't be trusted to use colours". Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  To be fair, colour issues don't just affect colour-blind users. Looking at a rainbow-coloured table is also annoying for anybody who has full vision too... As for crufty details (if we for a moment disregard that the whole of the table might be such a thing), even way back in 2013 (caution: massive colour misuse, too) there were some reservations about those, though apparently the fancruft somehow prevailed... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: On second thought (bearing this example in mind): entirely agree with the "you simply can't be trusted to use colours" statement... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I’ll write up an RfC tomorrow on reality show article formatting and detail (e.g. do we want progress tables?). Hopefully we can get consensus to clean up the cruft and make them more accessible. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• IMO updating these shows week by week is like updating articles of football matches before they've finished, which is something we don't do. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: Well we do update cricket matches mid-way through (at the innings break, or at the close of play each day if it's a first class game). But then again, cricket is a sport which requires patience, a virtue which, judging by persistent requests such as this one, those misusing WP as a repository for crufty fansite-material might be sorely lacking... Not that there isn't some valid encyclopedic content which can be written about these reality TV series (their cultural impact, and mostly how they are not reality...), but yeah to quote previous editors "blow by blow accounts" are unecessary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This can probably be closed as Messinwithbruce is now blocked as a sock. 86.164.109.106 (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not everything is over. For examples there are still some instances of things like WP:CANVASS, see for ex. Talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_(season_13)#UK_Series_2... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

And now there's User:Ellis.o22 who is (very subtly, by wikilinking Ignorance) - [250] engaging in what clearly feels as a WP:PA and is entirely unacceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

MfactDr reported by HOA101

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• MfactDr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The dominant name in for this event is the "2016 Ethiopian protests," this novel name of 2016 Ethiopia’s nationwide Oromo protests User:MfactDr has concocted makes it seem like only Oromo people had a hand in the event. There was a a well documented sizable Amhara support for the protests as well, it also included support from other Ethiopians but namely Oromos and Amharas, do not erase documented Amhara opposition against the then government and support for the protests. Cease and desist this vandalism and historical revisionism of erasing Amhara and other Ethiopian contribution to ousting the Tigray People's Liberation Front from power specifically related to this event. User:MfactDr's novel title of 2016 Ethiopia’s nationwide Oromo protests was deliberately made to make the false argument that only Oromos were involved, which is incorrect, and I have also witnessed User:MfactDr's deletion of many sourced materials from the article specifically those that relate to Amhara contributions to the protests. HOA101 (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• You've posted basically this same message on their talk page, and at AIV, and at the article talk page. I would advise you to wait and see how they reply, and please don't keep spamming this same message all over. This looks like a fairly routine content dispute, there does not appear to be any need for administrative intervention in it at this time. If discussion doesn't bring the results you hoped for, you can pursue dispute resolution to resolve it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox, I think the user HOA101 not happy with sourced contents and accused me removed contents. I have replied him under Talk:2016 Ethiopian protests the same issue. there is no single concocted contents as he claimed, all my edit on 2016 Ethiopian protests was all sourced contents. I advise him not remove sourced contents as s/he did here I haven't removed any single sourced contents from Amhara part as s/he claimed! if s/he found any sourced contents is removed by me, I am more than happy to correct it. thanks MfactDr (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I've been trying to reach consensus on the Talk:Gina Carano page under "Jewish bankers tweet", but one editor user:Sangdeboeuf keeps posting personal attacks against me. I left a polite note on his page when he started being rude/confrontational, then a warning when he made the first personal attack, then a final warning when he made another personal attack. He has now made a third. He deleted the note/warnings; a cursory examination of edit summaries on his talk page indicates he has deleted other warnings on other issues from other editors in the past, and may be a habitual offender trying to skirt warning guidelines. Other editors on the page are being helpful, so I'm going to keep trying to work with them. Gershonmk (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please provide DIFFs of these personal attacks. No one is going to go wading through those talks to pick them out,. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, I did so on 2/16, as did others, but no admins have engaged here. Gershonmk (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

1. "I would suggest you read my last response once more, carefully this time, because you apparently did not understand (or did not wish to understand)"
2. "Some people really need to read WP:BLPSPS once, or dare I say, twice more."
3. "If you don't understand . . . then you may not be competent to edit this article."

On the same page, he's accused other users of "weasel words," and posted "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like."

Gershonmk (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I already addressed #1 (see below). #2 and #3 are not personal attacks. Nor is saying that someone is "adding weasel words". The final diff was a response to Crossroads saying, "I am not debating you" (their first comment in the discussion!) and accusing me of WP:FILIBUSTERing. If I am to be sanctioned, then I don't think Crossroads' combative bahavior should be left out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You were already WP:FILIBUSTERING by demanding other editors WP:SATISFY you and by edit warring your "disputed" tag in [251][252] despite four editors disagreeing with you. [253] Your whataboutism doesn't help your case at all. I cautioned you against engaging in that because you already were being disruptive and you continued to do it anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

At the time I reverted your undiscussed removal of the tag, I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Your combative stance and insisting on treating disussion as a poll, despite policy stating otherwise, is what's disruptive here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your tendentious addition of the tag (no tag is the default/status quo), and Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion (and their later comment also suggests that). I am very familiar with your strategy of 'it's not a vote, I'm still right', and I have addressed it below. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a response to my comment on the talk page saying, "If you don't understand that [X, Y, and Z] are claims about Carano, then you may not be competent to edit this article", which is not a personal attack. Note that I struck an earlier comment that suggested Gershonmk was editing disruptively; looking at the discussion as a whole I don't think that idea was off-base. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Following this report, Gershonmk went to the article talk page to accuse me of gaming the system. More evidence that they don't actually care about so-called "personal attacks" and are simply trying to exhaust their opponents by repeating the same rejected arguments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Not going to defend this -- I thought better of it -- except to note that it was up for less than a minute. Gershonmk (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has a long-term habit of disruptive uncooperative editing, especially via extreme WP:BLUDGEONING, WP:IDHT by claiming no one else presented policy-compliant points, constant demands that other editors WP:SATISFY them, continuing to WP:FILIBUSTER when not satisfied, misusing policy to suit their ends, and even attacks.

This is very evident at the this Talk:Gina Carano discussion. BLUDGEON, IDHT, and SATISFY are all in strong evidence. Here is an especially blatant out-of-context quote of MOS:QUOTE and obvious misuse of WP:V and WP:NOR to contradict MOS:QUOTE allowing for encyclopedic quotes: [254] You'll also see their typical WP:IDHT strategy when outnumbered: Point to "not a headcount", claim no policy-based argument has been presented, demand to be SATISFIED: [255] Also, this was still a serious personal attack on me.

At a Talk:Transsexual discussion, the same behaviors manifest. They misrepresent their opponent's arguments ([256], [257], & [258]), have passive-aggressively moved her comments around, [259][260] and have been uncivil. [261]

Relatively brief discussion at Talk:Latinx where all these behaviors, as well as their obvious tendentiousness to keep out a source they don't like, are on full display. And the same IDHT, misuse of policy, tendentiousness, and FILIBUSTER are equally visible lower on the same page, where CorbieVreccan also told them to stop edit warring and WP:DROPTHESTICK early on.

Another discussion where they POV push and purge a source and other text against consensus: [262] They, as usual, trot out "not a headcount" as justification for ignoring everyone else. I pressed further, and their response is literally, no joke, to justify themselves with the "anyone can edit" pillar - obvious and blatant misuse of WP:5P3 - and to dare me to take them to ANI (link to exact diff).

An uninvolved editor notes they lead a different thread on a "pointless tangent": [263]

See their attempt to change policy in line with their peculiar philosophy and how they were rebutted here. Also see where yet another user, Mathglot, notes their wrong approach: [264]

I'm aware I've linked to discussions, not just diffs, but the misconduct is such that a single diff often doesn't really explain it. I trust that if admins look at those discussions, they will clearly see the behaviors I've described. This user cannot be allowed to think these are acceptable behaviors and need to be clearly told what the consequences are for such editors. They are driving other editors away from their pet topics, which I suspect is the point (WP:OWN). Crossroads ^-talk- 22:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC) added a bit Crossroads ^-talk- 22:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has also been informed of the following discretionary sanctions:

• 9 November 2020, American politics: [265]
• 29 October 2020, Gender/Gamergate: [266]
• 2 December 2018, American politics: [267]
• 5 August 2018, BLP: [268]
• 1 May 2018, Gender/Gamergate: [269]

Crossroads ^-talk- 22:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has been validly reported for 3RR violations twice but somehow escaped without sanction each time. [270][271] This one was very nearly a violation: [272]

At ANI previously, was warned about edit warring and disruptive tagging. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads' complaints about my "misusing" policy are debatable to say the least. I suspected they have had a WP:GRUDGE against me for some time, but the speed with which they were able to collect all the above "evidence" suggests they have a bona fide obsession. Not healthy IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This comes off as a personal attack as well, Sangdeboeuf. As for your questioning Gershonmk's competence, from WP:CIR "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack" [emph. mine] It definitely comes off like you're not arguing your points in good faith. Many of the policies you cite in that discussion either don't say what you say they do, or don't apply at all. For instance, you cite WP:BLPSPS, insisting that self-published sources are not allowed, but they are not automatically rejected by policy, merely to be avoided. For another instance, you never did explain to me how my proposed edit were weasel words, simply linked to them and asserted that they were. They aren't, but it would be great if you made a case for it. Is it possible to move the discussion forward over there without acrimony? Rendall (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant part of BLPSPS was quoted at Talk:Gina Carano#Jewish bankers tweet. If you are saying the phrase "Never use" means "sometimes use", then you should seek clarification at the policy talk page or noticeboard. To me "never" means "never". The part about "weasel words" is moot since we can attribute the statement to a published source. This is mainly a content dispute anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

While true on its face, this is an ambiguous case, so indeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding. Substack is a new phenomena, but you have decided it is a "personal blog". The article in question is by a professional journalist and the subject willingly participated in the interview, but you have decided it is "self-published". The list of acceptable versus unacceptable does not include this situation (WP:USINGSPS notes only as Unacceptable Someone's personal blog about his neighbor, business partner, or friend.), but you have decided that there should be no discussion. You could ultimately be right, but your language around disagreement is tendentious. This can be discussed amiably without the language described above. Rendall (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, there is nothing ambiguous about it - Substack does not exercise meaningful editorial or content control and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is akin to a content management system, not a newspaper or magazine. Anything published in a Substack newsletter is the self-published opinion of the author, so far as Wikipedia is concerned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, there is nothing ambiguous about it The topic at hand is personal attacks. Regardless of what you and I and Sangdeboeuf think, personally about Substack, consensus is blocked by such language. Rendall (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I already responded on the talk page to show that Rendall is wrong about USINGSPS. I'll just say that ignoring the clear wording of a policy because an explanatory supplement doesn't mention the exact scenario in question strikes me as the epitome of bad Wikilawyering. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

[I]ndeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding – Don't know what to say to this blatant attempt at gaslighting except maybe "Do you even English bro?" —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Would an admin kindly close this thread, which has devolved into forum-shopping for content disputes that should be addressed on the article talk page? Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not at all; this is about your misbehavior and the fact that it is a long-term pattern. Admins need to address this somehow. Why do we even have pages like IDHT and FILIBUSTER if the editors who engage in that are freely allowed to do so even when reported at ANI? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I direct admins to my original complaint, at the top of this section. Gershonmk (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Gershonmk, I'm not seeing personal attacks. Crossroads, your evidence doesn't seem strong. DS alerts are not a sign of wrongdoing and those are stale disagreements with no clear infringement. If admins decided to resolve edit warring using page protection and discussion rather than sanctions, then I defer to their judgement. Fences&Windows 01:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Really? Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like [273] is not a personal attack? This [274] much like this [275] is not blatant twisting of policy? To name but a tiny bit of the evidence presented. And DS alerts, seriously? I clearly presented those to show the user is aware of the discretionary sanctions, not as evidence. 'It's stale' is refusal to recognize a pattern, and that and the DS comment makes me think you didn't even look at most of the evidence. By that logic, no one can ever be warned or sanctioned for behavior patterns since it takes time to accumulate evidence of a pattern. Why do we even have pages like WP:TE and WP:IDHT if certain users can violate them with impunity? How else can one present evidence of ongoing behavior of that sort? And 3RR violations almost always result in a block on what WP:UNBLOCKABLES calls a 'less experienced user'. This user needs to learn to WP:LISTEN and accept that they are not the sole guardian and interpreter of policy. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's no more a personal attack than Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this either on this talk page or with their tag they keep edit warring in. [276] I note that Crossroads' concerns about edit warring at Gina Carano don't seem to extend to their own behavior: [277][278] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

More whataboutism and false equivalence. Anyone can see what happened there. And reverting one person blanking a paragraph built by multiple people is quite different than filibustering a quote with a tag and claiming someone never gave a reason to include the quote when they did. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, "my reasons are obviously justified, so it's not edit warring when I do it". Now why didn't I think of that earlier? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• WP:CLEANHANDS is relevant when bringing something to ANI, and is particularly important when you're trying to argue that something is part of a pattern or when raising issues related to civility, personalizing disputes, and AGF. In this, for instance, which you linked yourself above, you opened the discussion with Cherry-picking bits and pieces from a guideline to expunge whatever one personally doesn't like is not how NPOV is achieved, which is hardly WP:AGF. Is it such a surprise that Sangdeboeuf would be a bit short with someone who approaches them like that? --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. The attempts of you both to push a 'both sides' whataboutist narrative are quite transparent. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• But the fact is that that is an essay, while AGF is policy. By my reckoning I did barely more than disagree with your position across a few pages, and that was all it took for you to permanently drop the presumption of good faith and categorize me as a bad-faith actor forever (see the utterly innocuous diff you presented below, which I assume was one of the catalyzing events.) Please correct me on that point if you disagree and are willing to state that I broadly act in good faith, and I'll apologize for that summerization; I know that comments can sometimes come across as more hostile than intended. But by my reckoning both my record and Sangdeboeuf's are essentially clean and (in disputes with both us and several others) you have consistently failed to convince people that they should be otherwise. If you constantly find yourself categorizing longstanding editors in good standing as bad-faith actors, and few others seem to agree, the issue may be that your sensors are miscalibrated and that you are too willing to assume the worst of editors you come into dispute with, rather than large swaths of Wikipedia being part of a sinister cabal arrayed against you. --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• You are overgeneralizing. I do assume good faith for you and others; however, having good intentions or doing good editing some or most of the time is not an excuse for misbehavior at other times. Such misbehavior needs to be warned against, not tolerated and hence encouraged. And what my point about AGF is in nonetheless in agreement with WP:AGF: Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not really seeing how this is a blatant twisting of policy - it's a debatable point, but that's pretty much the standard argument that comes up over quotes. And the 3RR violations you cited are from literally years apart; part of the reason stale evidence isn't accepted is because otherwise any longtime editor would accumulate violations - that is, less than one 3RR violation a year obviously isn't a really meaningful pattern, even before you dig into the context of each report (did you read the discussion here, which explains in detail what happened and why the page was protected? Page protection is a common outcome for a 3RR report when the underlying issue is extensive disruption or a broad dispute.) Most of the other diffs you list are similar - arguments from years apart with no clear violations in them. --Aquillion (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• That is not the standard argument; nobody in good faith thinks that V and NOR are saying that quotes shouldn't be included even though MOS:QUOTE as a whole clearly says they can. Such time-wasting twisting and dishonesty should not be waved away. And I gave many more examples. I knew that if you showed up here, you would definitely take Sangdeboeuf's side. In fact, your editing strategy is quite similar: [279] WP:CLEANHANDS indeed. Almost all of what I presented including the edit warring was from since 2019, and the 3RR violations were less than a year apart. As Wikipedia does far too often, though, POV pushing is enabled depending on what POV is being pushed. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• That isn't what Sangdeboeuf said. They plainly read your statement as saying that a quote is better than an interpretation as a general rule; policy does specifically say otherwise (though obviously that doesn't resolve the dispute itself, because then you have to argue whether a quote is justified in this specific case.) That's the most basic exchange on policy related to quotes there is. Interpreting it as a debate over whether quotes are allowed at all (something that any editor would know) requires a disconcertingly hostile reading. You are correct that the 2019 and 2020 RR3 reports overlapped by a few days less than a year (I got the dates for the 2019 and 2020 ones reversed in my head, since the first diff's dates are so close a year apart), but that doesn't change the broad gap between them or the entirely valid reasons Swarm gave to Netoholic for refusing to block in 2019 - again, all those outcomes are extremely standard for reports of that nature. Similarly, I don't particularly understand what your intention is with presenting this diff, beyond the commonality that I've made an argument you disagree with; I decided not to keep going and get into an extended dispute there or go through the drudgery of breaking down individual problems and holding RFCs, since the amount of work the article requires is staggering, but I 100% hold by my argument that the article, as a whole, has serious POV issues, especially when it comes to giving undue weight to a few highly-opinionated sources of comparatively low quality. But you don't have to agree with that to recognize that it is a valid position to take - ultimately you just need to recognize that editors can have a sharply divergent perspective on an article, its sources, and the related policy while still editing in good faith. (And as much as I hate to contemplate how fast time is passing, 2019 was roughly two years ago - things from back then are absolutely stale, absent an much more convincing pattern than you're alleging here.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding the quote matter, the context disagrees with this narrative. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• And this is actually a perfect example of the problem here. An editor not involved in that dispute makes a report and the admin pretty blatantly takes Sangdeboeuf's side in the dispute by denying that Sangdeboeuf did anything wrong in violating 3RR and accepting their lame excuses. And this same admin lets Sangdeboeuf off the hook again when Sangdeboeuf violates 3RR at the same article a year later: [280] This is a perfect example of how on Wikipedia some misbehavior is more tolerated than others depending on who did it or for what POV. And I say this as someone who thinks that many of their edits there were "correct"; but that is not an excuse for edit warring. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sangdeboeuf generally seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:WINNING / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY / WP:GREATWRONGS problem that runs along "cancel-culture behavior in furtherance of a social-justice activism PoV" lines. I've seen many examples of this, but the WP:BLUDGEON behavior at this RM is a good case in point. Sangdeboeuf needs a lengthy time-out from the relevant topic area (narrowly or broadly); or, rather, other editors need a break from Sangdeboeuf. I favor topic-bans over blocks, since it allows a topically problematic editor to continue to participate, away from the locus of their disruption. The first and third diffs presented by Gersonmk as evidence do appear to constitute personal attacks, but probably not the second (which was kind of snide, so more of a general WP:CIVIL thing). While it is true that competence is required, WP means something quite specific about that, namely a general ability to get along with people at a collaborative project, a habit of thinking and writing that is more or less logical, and the ability to write/read English well enough to meaningfully participate. These expectations are by no means license to accuse other editors of having competency or rationality faults just because they you don't think they understand your personal viewpoint and your expression of it or don't agree with your stance-taking. Just, no. If anything, trying to abuse WP:CIR in this manner is itself a CIR failure on Sangdeboeuf's part, of the first kind (lack of collaborative temperament). Same goes for some other diffs, like the one from Crossroads showing "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like." This is precisely the sort of thing ArbCom wrote WP:ASPERSIONS about: pretending you're a mind-reader and coming to WP:AGF-failing negative assumptions about other people's mentality and motivations. This is also an element in the first diff from Gersonmk. And, no, it is not at all comparable to "Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this ... or ... edit war...", which is entirely about observable actions and effects, not subjective assumptions of intent.

  This sort of stuff is also pretty obviously the nature of Sangdeboeuf's problems here generally: if you do not agree with Sandeboeuf on a view that this editor feel socio-politically very strongly about, then you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy, so Sangdeboeuf will harangue, insult, and browbeat you in hopes that you run away or at least that you might seem discredited to other editors in the discussion (to the extent they can wade through all of Sangdeboeuf's repetitive ranting). The fact that this technique generally does not actually work is immaterial; it's still anti-collaborative battlegrounding that is corrosive to the project and stressful to Sangdeboeuf's victims.

  If this ANI fails to conclude with any action: Given that Sangdeboeuf's disruptive patterns have a strong tendency to cross the lines of two WP:AC/DS topics at once (modern American politics, and gender/sexuality), we should probably just ensure that the editor has {{Ds/alert}} for each of these topics, within the last year (I see from above that this is so, notified of both in October 2020 or later), and take any further such incidents to WP:AE for quicker action. (Just put the evidence up front without making people ask for it, and put it in newer-to-older order.) ANI tends not to be very useful for this sort of thing, because it turns into back-and-forth blathering (AE won't tolerate much of that), and because of the "I agree with your viewpoint so will excuse all your behavior" attitude on the part of too many in the ANI peanut gallery. The AE admins are generally better able to see that a majority of editors liking a viewpoint has nothing to do whether particular behavior in furtherance of that viewpoint is permissible.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  These expectations are by no means license to accuse other editors of having competency or rationality faults just because they you don't think they understand your personal viewpoint – if you could provide a WP:DIFF of where I did any such thing, that would be helpful. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Repeat: "The first and third diffs presented by Gersonmk as evidence". The very fact that you were attacking another editor for alleged reading-comprehension competency problems is staggeringly ironic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  I already pointed out where I struck the first comment after Gershonmk complained about it. The third comment has nothing to do with anyone's personal point of view, unless there's a legitimate point of view in which the various iterations of Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers/financiers ... she did not know the men pictured were Jews ... many had accused Carano of anti-Semitism (e.g. [281][282][283][284][285]) can be considered anything other than claim[s] about Carano. I think I showed considerable patience with an editor repeatedly [286][287][288][289] denying the obvious reality that their proposed text was directly about the subject of the BLP, and therefore subject to stricter sourcing requirements. Such behavior is also a form of disruption. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  This is precisely the sort of thing ArbCom wrote WP:ASPERSIONS about: pretending you're a mind-reader and coming to WP:AGF-failing negative assumptions about other people's mentality and motivations. Does that mean you'll be striking your above comment re: my thinking that you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy? Thanks again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  No, and these ridiculous WP:SANCTIONGAMING attempts are going to get you nowhere. Describing your pattern of battleground behavior in which you treat other editors as if they are enemies, stupid, or crazy, and go out of your way to paint them as mentally deficient or up to no good, requires no allegations on my part that I'm reading your mind or sussing out your motives. It requires nothing but observing what you're clearly doing in the diffs presented as evidence. If you continue to play this game of "I can be a WP:JERK all I want as long as I can imply anyone criticizing me is doing it too, even if it's not actually true", then I guarantee you are going to receive sanctions, probably sooner than later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Describing your pattern of battleground behavior ... requires no allegations on my part that I'm reading your mind or sussing out your motives. That's exactly what you just did: if you do not agree with San[g]deboeuf on a view that this editor feel[s] socio-politically very strongly about, then you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy. Unfalsifiable claims sure do come in handy when you want to accuse someone of acting in bad faith. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Again: Observing your behavior and that it is anti-collaborative, uncivil, and disruptive requires no assumptions about your faith, only observation that is what it is. I in fact believe your are acting entirely in good faith, of the WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:ADVOCACY / WP:TRUTH sort. An apparent belief that you are fighting the good fight doesn't magically make your behavior civil, collaborative, and constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  And, no, it is not at all comparable to "Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this ... or ... edit war...", which is entirely about observable actions and effects – where is the observable evidence of me WP:FILIBUSTERING anything at the talk page where Crossroads made that accusation? Note that WP:FILIBUSTERING specifically means repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, not one you or Crossroads happen to disagree with. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  In other words, as long as the editor filibustering denies the obvious fact that the consensus of multiple editors is against them, then it isn't filibustering, apparently. Don't forget to remind us that consensus is not a headcount, so you are free to dismiss everyone else. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  The consensus of multiple editors was not clear in this case, with opinions being evenly split, as I mentioned above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not at all evenly split, as I outlined above, to say nothing of all the other discussions that have been linked. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  At the time ... I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Seems fairly evenly split to me. Despite your claim that Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion, I don't see anything in their 12 February comment that suggests that. More to the point, you don't get to declare "consensus" in a dispute where you're personally involved, and then use that as a basis for accusing others of misconduct. That's a blatant abuse of the process. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  This is just more WP:WIKILAWYER hand-waving. You cannot evade the community finding you disruptive by trying to nitpick over exact wording in guidelines and essays and policies. If you are being disruptive, you will be made to stop being disruptive. If you don't think FILIBUSTER applies, then try BLUDGEON, TE, etc. There is no question that you are disruptive when it comes to this topic area. I'll be "happy" to pore over details of a large number of diffs of your behavior if this ends up at AE or ArbCom, where that level of analysis is actually useful. At ANI, it's a waste of time. PS: In case you think you can start the BLUDGEON behavior again, you should recall that the last time we were discussing that I warned against it and pointed to someone blocked or T-banned for it, right on the same page the same day. The same is true this time around; see #Bludgeoning (Bus stop) just below, in which someone got outright site-banned for it. I encourage you to learn from this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC); PS added 08:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  At ANI, it's a waste of time. How very convenient for you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  To the contrary, it's a stressy ass-pain, in which we'll have one energy-sucking pile of drama only to have it do nothing useful, and then we'll get to do it all over again later at a more practical venue later. ANI has turned into pretty much a useless waste of time (and worse, just a noise factory), except for dealing with obvious nuts, socks, trolls, and spammers. It is no longer capable of handling issues relating to behavior of long-term editors. But be careful what you ask for. Since your recalcitrance and game-playing indicate a high probability you'll end up at AE or RfArb soon enough, I've already started this diff research.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Everybody needs a hobby. Have fun. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  You can't have it both ways; either you want to be diffed in detail or you don't. More to the point, see first law of holes. The very fact that WP is our hobby but your behavior (and your own demands in regard to concerns about your behavior) necessitates putting that constructive hobby on hold to deal with your disruption, and you think this is funny, is in and of itself reason enough for remedies against you. WP thrives on collaborative and neutral-minded editing, and is harmed by "just try to stop me" gadfly behavior, which becomes more and more difficult to distinguish from everyday trolling the longer it continues.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  ...and you think this is funny... More not-mind reading, I see. In fact I welcome any opportunity to improve my behavior. But that requires actual evidence of poor behavior. My comment about it being "convenient" was in regard to your feeling that presenting diffs here is not worth your time, which conveniently frees you from having to back up your vague WP:ASPERSIONS. There comes a point where you have to put up or shut up, lest you become disruptive yourself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We could add this to the list. I don't think language like this is necessary: [[290]] "Do you even English Bro?" Rendall (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• These are not examples of personal attacks, and Sangdeboeuf is disputing the reliability of sources used in the article about Gina Carano. There should probably be more discussion on the sources used, and less fingerpointing. Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Just wanted to note this WP:UNCIVIL and accusatory comment from Crossroads towards Sangdeboeuf a while back: [291] WanderingWanda (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Extended confirmed protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Logged AE action. WanderingWanda, notwithstanding that, I would strongly recommend you refrain from publishing any and all Crossroads-related sleuthing in matters where you are otherwise uninvolved (unless egregious). Thanks in advance. P.S. noting that I have not reviewed this thread closely, for whatever that's worth (basically, am just here to announce the aforementioned ECP action). El_C 19:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• The diffs raised in the initial complaint, while terse, do not quite rise to the level of personal attacks. I don't think anything useful is going to come out of the additional feuding between Sangdeboeuf and Crossroads here at ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am failing to see anything that would result in a block. I would however propose a (voluntary) interaction ban between Crossroads and Sangdeboeuf. Other editors can weigh in for content disputes. That said, even in the ANI report here, while Crossroads has brought up legitimate conduct violations, their evident grudge and omission of past interactions with Sangdeboeuf makes it harder for me to form an opinion. Shushugah (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see a need for that on either of us. Such things make editing more difficult for those who have them and isn't warranted - reporting what one believes to be problematic behavior isn't a grudge. I am not sure what "omission of past interactions" means. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery

• Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IPs edit warring to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery.

In honor of the subject matter, I suggest that they should be homeopathic deletions.   :)  

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: While I understand the desire for promptness, was this really necessary with a request already pending at RFPP and the thread at FTN (I've merge your recent addition with it, if it doesn't bother)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't merge the two sections. They cover completely different aspects. One is about Homoeopathic Surgery, the other is IPs edit warring to overturn a valid deletion discussion.

The disruption continued after the RFPP. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I'll just add my two cents. When I reverted, it was for no other reason than an editor (in this case an ip) re-adding unsourced material, which as per the policy of WP:BURDEN, is not allowed. I like Guy Macon's humor, however. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this related to homeopathic A&E? Narky Blert (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected indefinitely. Logged AE action. El_C 16:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I got pinged here. I found Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery. It was, not right then, being used as an advert for schools. I couldn't see why a single sentence was required so merged it to homeopathy. El_C you may also want to protect Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery but that may count as pre-emptive. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Go for it, CambridgeBayWeather. I feel like I've reached my preemptive protection quota, for now, with Jill Biden and Jewish space lasers (pew pew!) — hey, that's a cool mix! //Recharging mana. El_C 21:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's OK. That's getting close to me being involved. Plus I don't like pre-emptive and / or (note how I followed the MOS there) indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I hear the homeopathic surgery courses are highly watered down. EEng 08:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Ramanpanikar and CopyVio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Ramanpanikar is insistent on copy and pasting the material directly from the personal webpage of Reshma Thomas into article space. I've tried copyvio flags, edit notes, messages on talk page and finally, a warning template. None of those have gotten a response nor changed their behavior, so here we are. Slywriter (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, don't forget to use {{Copyvio-revdel}} to flag the offending revisions for deletion. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter, I've protected the page, revdel'd all of the copyright violations, and indeffed the user for edit warring to add copyright violations. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 17:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Geography86 mass-creating contentless geostubs, unresponsive to communication

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has been creating a large number of geography stubs, consisting solely of e.g. "Mount Madi-ac is the highest peak in Aklan". No coordinates, no references, no categories, no second sentence. They've done about 32 in the last hour; I've attempted to communicate with them on their talk page, to no avail, and they continue to make more single-sentence articles. I'm not sure what to do with this: the articles are not vandalism, and they seem prima facie like they'd be capable of passing WP:NGEO if they had any references or content beyond a single sentence. The mass creation of dozens of unreferenced single-sentence stubs, however, seems disruptive to me. jp×g 02:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: Blocked for 24h by User:Moneytrees, but I still think this warrants further attention. jp×g 02:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to note that Hughesdarren and Troutfarm27 have most of this user's articles tagged under G5, which may suggest that they are a sock of somebody else, but I am clearly not sure if they are belonging to somebody else. Because of this, I tagged the rest of their articles with G5 as well as their proper tags Nevermind, I realized that these were mistags (per this decline) and I am draftifying the rest of these articles instead. MarioJump83! 04:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't tag them for CSD because they didn't look like they met any of the criteria (except for a couple that had no content and were just the article title repeated in body text). They're not very good articles, but WP:GEONAME presumably applies. Anyway, it looks like all of the rest of them got draftified, which seems fine (and then in six months someone can clear them out if they haven't been updated). I would have done that myself, but I didn't think to... jp×g 06:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Understood, and that realization helped me to realize that these articles should have been draftified. Thank you! MarioJump83! 06:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I have requested the global lock and now they are globally locked. I don't think there is a thing to do now and should be closed. MarioJump83! 11:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOTHERE by Metehan Uygur7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Metehan Uygur7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS:

What is the reason for the prejudice against turks. why don't you accept that the state or dynasty is of Turkic origin

Please stop being Iranian nationalism and look at some thoughts objectively, of not distorting history by nationalizing any Turkic dynasty.

What you're doing is just distorting history, remember that this is a page that's objective, and concepts like nationalism don't apply here.

You're just twisting history. You just have to be objective.

WP:SOAPBOX, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:JDLI:

Why pan-Iranianists are trying to portray any Turki dynasty as a Persian dynasty(Seljuk,kharezm,Afshar, Qajar,ghaznavid,) and others

On this page, I propose that pan-Iranianists be portrayed as a dynasty of Persian origin in a dynasty of Turkic origin and protected so that readers do not receive false information.

Removed −1,488 of text, because he personally deemed it "unreliable" [292]

I propose that this discussion page be removed because it distorts history by rejecting a document registered with a nationalist attitude.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infinitepeace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Infinitepeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I intervened in a BLP dispute[293] at Nightingale College by twice removing disputed material about its CEO and giving BLP warnings.[294][295] Infinitepeace leaves a series of erratic warnings that reachesWP:HOUNDING in terms of whatever point they're trying to make.[296][297] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Further disruption of the talk page[298] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is beyond ridiculous. Infinitepeace is bludgeoning Talk:Nightingale College, including copying comments from one page to another, and is now forum-shopping this issue to WT:OR, Teahouse Talk, User talk:Piotrus, User talk:GoingBatty, User talk:MB, WikiProject Utah, and WikiProject Higher education. I've explained why their edits are considered synthesis at WT:OR but they're WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I suggest a WP:CIR block. Woodroar (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Despite being specifically asked to not post to my Talk page, Infinitepeace continues to post to my Talk page. Confusingly, he or she explicitly acknowledged that I had made that request ("You then requested I no longer post on your talk page.").

I asked him or her to not post to my Talk page because he or she was unnecessarily aggressive and accusatory in our interactions. I ceased all contact and unwatched the article that he or she edits most. At this point this is harassment and I'd like it to stop. Can someone please have a word with him or her and convince him or her that this is unacceptable? ElKevbo (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Nightingale College.

WP:Hounding? Please. How about all of the dubious edits by you 3? The edit history is clear. Morbidthoughts leaves multiple messages on my talk page. WP:HOUNDING that is like the pot calling the kettle black.

I return the favor in kind.

ElKevbo has a history of deleting messages on his talk page which are critical of him. I noticed that he forum shopped on the Wikipedia education page. And so I brought it up to him on his talk page. He deleted the message again. I also noticed he edits A LOT of colleges. There is a history of paid editors editing the talk page.

I am adding all the comments of all of you people, in one place, so that neutral observers, who are not paid, can observe the various arguments and make their own decisions.

I wanted to file a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents against ElKevbo yesterday, but I could not find this location.

You 3 know the policy much better than I. With all of your combined histories, You most definitely have admins who are favorable to your WP:POV. You are hoping to silence me, then have the section that you are claiming does not meet WP:BLP noticeboard deleted. The editors on this page, are not taking the most simplest effort to confirm that what is added it true. Woodroar would not even do a simple google check that the man is president of Nightingale College

'I have avoided this forum like the plagued, because I see the way that well intentioned newbies and other editors are bullied and silenced. The people on this forum support deletion. Posting this also serves as an advertisement to have even more experienced editors slice up the article, criticize me, and comb through me edits.

I wish I would have found this page yesterday.

All the various edits by these 3 editors are on Talk:Nightingale College in one place. I am trying to establish that this information is valid, and I ask ElKevbo Morbidthoughts and Woodroar to start adding material instead of criticizing it. A simply google Woodroar. Infinitepeace (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Infinitepeace: Google does not establish notability or verifiability. This policy is: Wikipedia:Search engine test. Specifically, "Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none, for reasons discussed further down this page. Hit-count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability". Just that Google says someone is CEO does not mean they are. Zaereth and Woodroar point out nearly all of the problems with your edits. You respond to them telling them to read policy on WP:BITE and condescendingly asking them to edit the page themselves and come up with citations for it themselves ("I got a great idea guys, why not use Archive.org and help me edit the page, or Google Mikhail Shneyder Nightingale college.") You accuse other editors or bullying without any real evidence, then bringing up past warnings of users, without genuinely addressing what they did wrong. You then asked Morbidthoughts how they found this page, then accusing them of WP:COI paid editing with no evidence ("Explain how you found out about this article, as their is a history of paid editors who have editing this page."). WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts (merged)

See Talk:Nightingale College where all of the various arguments are in one place.

Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Today I started to be WP:hounded by the bizarre accusations of Mordbidthoughts. WP:KETTLE He was templating me to death. I returned the favor in kind. I also posted these flawed arguments on Talk:Nightingale College so that they would be all in one place where a neutral observer would see these edits. User:Morbidthoughts clearly knows Wikipedia policy better then me, and he is using this policy as a weapon to silence me. I am trying to add verifiable information to Nightingale College, and I continue to be WP:Hounded.

Morbidthoughts clearly knows how to delete peoples information. Going straight to WP:BLP Noticeboard , which tends to be is very very negative towards editors contributions. He then inevitable filed a WP:ANI (I think that is the acronym, which serves 2 purposes:

1. It will give more like mind editors a chance to weight in on the WP:BLP Noticeboard.
2. It will allow like minded editors to silence me.

I am concerned how the editor proudly proclaims on his talk page that he has been "vandalized 22 times" this shows a personality that does not get along with others. I have expressed these concerns to him.

i am attempting to keep all of the various and deeply flawed arguments of these editors in one place on Talk:Nightingale College. But that is not how Wikipedia works, and so Morbidthoughts is being blindsided by my edits, and so he he came here to rally the troops. I have nothing but contempt for this forum, and I avoid it like the plague because I see from afar how editors are Bullied

I want to remind Morbidthoughts that he is @ 2 reverts, and WP:3RR rule.

Seasoned editors will email their collogues. Saying this doesn't happen is denying reality. I have seen accusation of this here before too. And in those other boards which I don't remember the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitepeace (talk • contribs) 05:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Infinitepeace (talk)

Infinitepeace, you are editing disruptively. Please stop attacking Morbidthoughts with retaliatory warning templates. BTW, my talk page has been vandalized hundreds of times. El_C 05:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kashmiris disruption

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fowler&fowler has cut over 50,000 bytes of text from the Kashmiris article three times in the last few days. The user insists it is a POVFORK, but why is it acceptable to cut nearly the entire article without a dedicated plan for rewriting, or at least getting consensus on the talk page? For “an experienced editor” as they write on my talk page, this seems like vandalism.[299]—Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 03:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with F&F in some of their edits. Their edit summaries explain mostly why they removed it, and I agree with those about NPOV. As for WP:OR, I'm stumped with a lot of it. For example, they say one of the links they removed is a tourism site, but I only see book citations and a UN report (see this edit). WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 04:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the posts here. I am about to go to bed, so I'll reply to the allegations tomorrow. But let me state the previous consensus in Kashmir-related pages:

Kashmir, the northern-most region of South Asia, is a major area of dispute and controversy; it is the oldest dispute before the UN. There are discretionary sanctions imposed by ARBCOM on Kashmir-related pages. ( I am the main author of Kashmir, the FA India, Partition of India, History of Pakistan, British Raj, Company rule in India, in other words all the historical pages related to Kashmir. I am the person responsible for the consensus among WP editors from India and Pakistan on a common introductory NPOV language in all the pages on the major subregions of Kashmir.)

Kashmiris, however, is a POV-fork, mostly written by a banned user, and expanded by editors who are attempting to sneak in the Indian Hindu nationalist POV. By earlier consensus, tourism, geography, biodiversity, and the pre-1947 history is restricted to the Kashmir page, the history of the period 1947 to 2019 to the Jammu and Kashmir (state) page and the history thereafter to the Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) page. There is nothing in the Kashmiris page except Kashmiri language that is NPOV. The dedicated plan is to redirect it to Kashmiri language. More tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Molandfreak, maybe engage the March 11 discussion at Talk:Kashmiris#POV_fork, first? I'd also point out that reverting with the edit summary "WTF?" (diff) isn't the best look. Nor is intimating "vandalism" on the part of an editor who arguably has contributed more content (of especially high-quality, I would add) to Indian-related topics than anyone else on the project. In any case, please review what vandalism is not, because that is, in fact, a personal attack. El_C 04:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: So I'm entirely the bad guy for pointing out a fifty thousand byte removal of material without pointing to the brief talk page discussion in the edit summaries? Sorry for not knowing the entire history of Fowler&fowler's editing and I'm sure it's good, but it really appears one-sided from that perspective. The revisions have effectively reduced the article to the point where about half of it is just external links, which isn't really their fault, but a "rewrite in progress" or something else to note would have been nice to see in the midst of a deletion that massive.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Withdrawn. This was a mistake in the first place just assuming there would be a larger discussion on the talk page with consensus on the deletion of that much material. Sorry for WP:POINTing this. @Fowler&fowler: I'm terribly sorry about dragging you into this ordeal and honestly meant no harm.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Molandfreak maybe glance at the user page (User:Fowler&fowler) of the editor of whom you accuse of vandalism...? It only takes a minute. El_C 05:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special:Contributions/74.51.144.75 and WP:VERIFY

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 74.51.144.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent addition of unsourced material throughout February despite multiple warnings being issued. Behaviour has continued into March. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 04:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 04:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Report of User:Tayi Arajakate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Tayi Arajakate is abruptly reverting my edits simply because it doesn't suits its interest. I have added templates which are related to the respective article. And he is just removing without giving proper explanation. Check [300] [301] [302]. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Adinew56, you're facing imminent WP:ARBIPA sanctions. You need to slow down. Stop edit warring in multiple related pages. Respect and observe WP:ONUS, please. El_C 04:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem is he not even willing to listen on this issue. Rather gave me veil threat of disruptive editing at my talk page. A person who doesn't have the courage to discuss this issue and reverting my edits randomly is unacceptable. We can discuss this out and then reach consensus, but he just reverting simply because it doesn't suit his interest. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you are adding disputed content to multiple pages and edit warring over their reinsertion. I find that linking to WP:ONUS often doesn't help, because users engaging in disruptive editing, like yourself, simply do not bother clicking on the link. So, then, I'm forced to quote, which I really shouldn't have to. Well, should, shouldn't, here it is: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 05:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring this to ANI yet but since you did anyways, I should probably elaborate a bit more. I haven't checked most of the edits as of now but from what I can see there are a lot of serious issues with your editing. See the following for example.

• Special:Diff/1010576243 - Here you removed "citation needed" tags, with the edit summary "as per source sentence corrected". The citations provided for the part afterwards do not verify the line.
• Special:Diff/1011991286 - This page move along with the explanation in Special:Diff/1012021992 is an example of original research.
• Special:Diff/1010374811 - Adds a term in the template and then spams it across a number of articles.
• Special:Diff/1011042324 - Another instance of the above.
• Special:Diff/1010942508 - Another example of OR driven reasoning.

The template and category spam in particular is extremely disruptive and somewhat difficult to spot as they appear as relatively small edits and don't concern the mainspace. Some of them may be included while others certainly not. For instance the addition of "Category:Totalitarianism" in The Emergency (Special:Diff/1011666926). Many of the articles are also very contentious and the inclusion or not would need to be discussed. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Look the main point is these are not disruptive editing first of all. Secondly why didn't you discuss these matters first rather reverting my edits randomly. First you discuss point by point article by article then after consensus then we can see what should be included or not. If you have any issue with the template and category then discuss each template and category one by one what should be included or not. Something does not suits your interest doesn't mean you revert. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Adinew56, what part of the onus is on you do you not understand? El_C 05:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I have understood clearly. My main point is if you have any issue with me first discuss with me article by article. And then we'll see what should be included or not. Simple. I can't fathom why you guys are making things so complicated. Through discussion any issue can be resolved no matter how much time it takes. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you obviously don't understand. The onus is on you to discuss once your edits are contested. Making such contested edits in multiple pages is disruptive and is a cause for sanctions. Which, unfortunately, seem more and more likely to be needed here. El_C 05:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Adinew56, on looking through the above and your editing behavior it is clear that you don't understand how this encyclopaedia works and/or don't want to follow the processes but just have your way. You need to correct this behavior or you will be the one being sanctioned. —SpacemanSpiff 05:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Look something doesn't suits you. You threaten people to block them. What is stopping you to discuss if you have any problem with my editing. I'll discuss each article at their respect talk page. I don't want to lengthen this discussion. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Adinew56 First of all don't refer to editors as "it" and I appreciate that may have been a mistake. Second take a look at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold, you got reverted and now you go to the talk page and discuss. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Using "he" is also inappropriate, as Tayi Arajakate lists their preference as "they", per {{gender|Tayi Arajakate}}. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Please note that I've topic banned Adinew56 from the WP:ARBIPA topic area for 3 months as a logged AE action. El_C 06:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Please revert your action regarding WP:ARBIPA topic area. I apologize for my mistake and willing to cooperate with you. Please don't do topic banned. I apologize. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Adinew56, but it's best that you get the hang of things outside of this fraught topic area, because there are too many problems, including likely questionable edits to living persons. El_C 06:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: For god's sake don't do this to me. Please forgive me. I made a mistake and willing to cooperate with you guys. I apologize. Please please revert topic banned from the WP:ARBIPA topic area. Forgive me. From next time if you find any mistake then put sanctions against me. Forgive me. I apologize for my mistake. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UPE at Devadas Krishnadas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Devadas Krishnadas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lingyin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gouriepandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rachelpang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reporting very likely UPE. (I apologise if this isn't the right forum. I tried at WP:COIN but wasn't able to get a response.) These accounts are single-purpose accounts which have edited almost exclusively on this article. These usernames match the names of people who were employees at the subject's company at the time of their edits, as an internet search shows. (I'm happy to send screenshots of their profiles or links to an admin on email.) They have not edited in a while, but I think some action is warranted as a deterrence to future employees from doing the same. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kohlrabi Pickle: these accounts have not edited Devadas Krishnadas in almost five years. If you think there is a problem with the page, simply edit it. I don't think ANI is the solution. --- Possibly (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ahmad Zahir

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ahmad Zahir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Editor Tajik.Arya has continually made edits to the Ahmad Zahir page, replacing neutral terms and cultural references with ones that seem to accord with the user's preference, though no explanation or citation has ever been provided. The editor has received several warnings on their talk page, but they have paid them no heed. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• SBS3800P

This user has a history of persistent and blatant disruptive editing. They fulfil WP:DISRUPTSIGNS by failing to cite sources (point 2), and ignoring community input (point 5).

Their most recent unsourced edits, all from 2021, are: [303], [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309]. (Those that have citations behind them were added by other users and do not support the content that SBS3800P added.) There are innumerable more. A quick look through their contribution history will also show that nearly every edit comes without an edit summary.

Attempts by members of the community to engage with or warn them number have been ignored. There are at least 13 examples of these on their talk page dating back to 2018. (These are all prominent on SBS3800P's talk page.)

Members of the community have reported this user at ANI three times (incident in May 2019, incident in May 2020 and incident in November 2020), but for one reason or another, they were not able to achieve a resolution.

This is disruptive editing of the most flagrant kind and needs to be resolved as soon as possible, ideally with finality. It is likely wilfully incompetent editing, destructive to the encyclopedia and leaving a mess for other editors to clean up. I'm hoping an admin can help with this. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New user misusing user pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wikiworld738163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User in question has been ClueBot-related things to their user page, clearly misusing their pages (see here and here). User has also created User:Wikiworld738163/edit rate and User:Wikiworld738163/tasks and is now changing things to their own liking on User:ClueBot Commons/Awards. Seems to me like we have a possible case of WP:NOTHERE. Magitroopa (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've ever used "not here to build an encyclopedia" as a block reason before, but thsi seems like a pretty clear case. Blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Windsor Lines

I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk · contribs) repeatedly creates the article Windsor Lines (Waterloo to Reading, Windsor and Hounslow loop) [310] which effectively is an incoherent copy of three existing articles (Waterloo–Reading line, Hounslow Loop Line and Staines–Windsor line). This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Windsor Lines and there is no consensus for combining these articles into one. --PhiH (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

PhiH (talk · contribs)I did because in the rail industry they are treated as a combined network.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the article which can be argued out at the existing project talk page, I have blocked the user for one week from article space for repeated unattributed copying and pasting from other articles to create the one under discussion. They have had more than one warning, including one from me earlier today yet they have insisted on repeating the copy in twice since then. Nthep (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2603:9000:FF00:A7:1927:4C3A:3389:CF0B

• 2603:9000:FF00:A7:1927:4C3A:3389:CF0B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring, Undid Sourced edits on Abu Mohammad al-Julani and the connected edits on Template:Al-Qaeda Norschweden (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you do somthing about that IP? he is reverting sourced edits, did 3 reverts in a row, and might have political agenda Norschweden (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That guy is getting annoying, he doesn't provide sources, he just revertes sourced edits without any explaination Norschweden (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Mazarin07

This editor has made personal attacks or at least makes no attempt to assume good faith.[311][312][313] JFW | T@lk 18:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverting in bad faith is not a personal attack, of course. However, how would you call deleting important information in medical-related articles - by important information I mean those founded on clinical trials -, thus preventing people suffering of diseases to get the latest information? What are your moral standards, if any? Mazarin07 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF / WP:CIVIL, and particularly read the message on your talk page from Sphilbrick. It is possible someone was mistaken and removed your edits when they weren't actual copyright violations on account of a Wikipedia mirror having the text and making it look like a copyvio; even so, you have to make more effort to resolve the disagreement civilly before accusing editors of bad faith and wrongdoing. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if you react like that at the first sign of disagreement then it becomes hard to work with you. (People are also less likely to listen to you if you react like that, which makes it harder to be heard even if you have a legitimate complaint.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mazarin07: I am really disappointed by your lack of insight. Being reverted is not a pleasant experience, but that does not mean that a revert was done "in bad faith". I have provided you with an explanation why the content you added was unsuitable for that article (WP:MEDRS in the main). I'd have thought this would have been sufficient to disabuse you of the notion that I reverted you just to annoy you.

Your appeal to morals sounds hollow if you simultaneously resort to abusive language. JFW | T@lk 12:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mazarin07, calling someone a robot is a personal attack and is not appropriate behavior. Neither is making jabs at other editors' moral standards, as in your reply above. If this behavior continues, it will lead to blocks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Bad move by JsfasdF252

JsfasdF252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First, please undo this move: [314]. So that the infobox is in Template space, named Template:Infobox actinium isotopes has the content. I.e., move [back] over Redirect.

The edit breaks stable infobox setup (as used in 100+ similar templates Category:Infobox element isotopes templates). Once mainspace articles are unbroken, we can fix minor edits & collateral. Maybe consider restrictions on the editor, to prevent more such edits. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

DePiep, moves reverted. Home Lander (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:Home Lander. Consider solved. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive new user

User:KaimkhaniKamal has made extensive edits in the Kabaddi article space. Most of these are contentious, disruptive, POVPUSH edits. But more importantly even outright WP:HOAXes. There is no singular international kabaddi competition and a lot of kabaddi sports competitions are known as the "World Cup" (based on their playing style standard/circle) but the user has without discussion moved and edited all of them to remove the word "World" from them, in-line in keeping with his disruptive change of an article about the International Kabaddi Federation to the World Kabaddi Federation (WKF) which are completely different organizations. The intention here is to keep only WKF organized events as "the" kabaddi World Cup on Wikipedia which is clearly not the case.

He has also disruptively introduced the term "kabadder" (move/edited pages) to designate kabaddi players, this term is completely unknown in any English publication or otherwise and is an outright hoax. They are known as kabbadi players (as seen in long standing cats which he has also disruptively moved).

Similarly other disruptive edits include the removal of any mention of India from multiple articles: [315], [316], [317].

Clearly the user's intention is not to contribute in any meaningful way, having ignored warning, reverts (silently undoing them repeatedly without discussion) and outright hoaxes. A perma-ban is the need here. Gotitbro (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment). Until 3 March 2021, Kadaddi World Cup was a DAB page - link. Both the articles on that page now redirect to Kabaddi World Cup. In the process, Kabaddi World Cup (Standard style) was blanked by KaimkhaniKamal with the ES "This is an unofficial tournament as IKF is not the official governing body of Kabaddi, The official page of Kabaddi World Cup is organized by World Kabaddi Federation (WKF)." Before blanking, that article looked like this. I share Gotitbro's concerns. Narky Blert (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week for disruption. Please clean up their "Kabaddi World Cup" and "Kabadder" edits as needed. Fences&Windows 12:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Golitbro and I have restored the three Kabaddi World Cup pages to the status quo ante, and I have posted accordingly on Golitbro's TP. Narky Blert (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Just an observation that more cleanup after this editor is still needed. I tried to track down two or three strings of related disruptive changes and burned out rather quickly. – Athaenara ✉ 08:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

redact personal info

Hi! Can someone please have a look at Seema Samridhi and redact the personal info. The editor claims to be the husband of the subject. Vikram Vincent 19:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Whoa! That was fast! Vikram Vincent 19:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

If I'd have a middle name, it'd probably be swift. Anyway, looks like the WP:OS team has now suppressed some of the worse problems. Some credits lost due to a mobile link (fixed!). Grr. El_C 22:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C unfortunate the Swift ain't your last name :D Vikram Vincent 07:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

<Insert $WIFT pun here> El_C 17:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Prolific IP vandal at CSD

Resolved

Please have a look at my recent deletion logs Special:Log/Maile66. We have an IP rapid fire creation of nonsense pages. So far, I've deleted about 30 as IPs, and a talk page (possibly same vandal) who created only a talk page that is an obscenity repeated over and over. Can this be halted? — Maile (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

At the moment, there seems to be a pause in the activity, but I'm leaving this open in case the vandal gets a second wind. — Maile (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops ... they have returned. — Maile (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Maile66: Could you be a bit more specific with example IPs? I looked through some of your deletion log, but they were all old pages, being nominated by the one (established) user. It looks like someone is having a clear-out. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Ah ... I see ... it's more one nominator. My error. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Nakita Kelley reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Expletive-laden personal attack on User talk:Alex 21. [318] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Alex 21 could be less bitey in this edit summary. Please use please when directing other users. It goes a log way to not generate frustrated outbursts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, because I said "don't revert again", that gives them reason to call me an "asshole" and a "son of a bitch"? Is that really what you're saying? "If Alex was this instead of this" is textbook victim-blaming. Shame. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody's right when everybody's wrong. @Nakita Kelley:. Please do not call other users foul names. Lot's of room for improvement. Two, no four magic words: "please", "thank you", & "I'm sorry". I see Nakita never responded here --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO a fair answer FWIW. Narky Blert (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

And here is Nakita apologizing. Before Alex responded here? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It should never have happened; Nakita Kelley apologized after the report, only because they were so prompted to. In your first response, you never said "please" to me, does that give me the right to egregious insults, and then if I apologize, we can act as if nothing happened? Cool. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Obviously Nakita Kelley acted inappropriately here, and certainly no one has the "right" to make egregious insults as long as they apologize later. However, in this case, because they are a relatively new editor, have been warned for their misconduct, and have since apologized, and because blocking is preventative, not punitive, no block appears to be necessary at this time. Mz7 (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Next sure, I'll be sure to say "please don't use fan art". -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:BlueGhast

Once again, user BlueGhast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) resumed to his/her reiterated disruptive editing and unjustified removal of content on the article Theistic Satanism (Diff 1, Diff 2) after being warned multiple times for similar disruptive behavior a few months ago on the same article. BlueGhast removed −2,831 of text from sourced content because, according to his/her own explanation in the edit summary, he/she personally deemed it a "Reference with irrelevant information" (Diff 1). Since the last discussion about this user, in which I was involved, I assumed good faith (as other editors suggested) about his/her behavior, I explained in the edit summary why his/her latest edit qualifies as disruptive, reverted it, and warned him/her on his/her Talk page (Diff 3). He/She ignored the warning, deleted it and reverted both my edits (Diff 2, Diff 4), then I proceeded to report him/her to the WP:AIV, and finally to the WP:ANI as the admin Spencer suggested.

BlueGhast's goal on Wikipedia seems entirely devoted to write about Joy of Satan Ministries on every article that pertains to Satanism (mainly, Theistic Satanism) in the most positive/grandiose way, disregarding other editors' contributions; more precisely, my contributions, since I had to notice him/her twice that copying within Wikipedia requires attribution to other editors' contributions on his/her Talk page; as always, he/she disregarded my messages and deleted them (Diff 5, Diff 6). Honestly, I think that BlueGhast doesn't really care about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, since he/she doesn't seem interested in getting familiar with them, nor with collaborating with other users (despite all the warnings and suggestions to do otherwise, which he/she just ignored and deleted). Instead, he/she continues with his/her erratic, careless behavior, ignoring other editors' messages and warnings about it, unresponsive to communications.

In my opinion, BlueGhast's disregard of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, careless behavior towards other editors, narrow self-interest and promotion of Joy of Satan Ministries, along with his/her latest edits, qualify as WP:Disruptive editing, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and possibly WP:NOTHERE.--GenoV84 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I made the removal as I felt the editors reference format wasn't suitable and out of place, so I simply changed it into source link for the article. The editor could've simply added the contents to the section, even though I'm uncertain if the material is even relevant to the article subject, otherwise editor is writing more than what is necessary for something that seams unrelated. Content should be elsewhere in my opinion, such as in the NSM article.

User was warned of AGF violation for false accusations, and evidently seams to continue doing so. I'm open minded to whatever information but the editor here seams to have different intentions. I was going to bring our issue for debate on the talk page, but I figured it would've ended up being escalated to Admin notice anyway. I also provided reasons for the changes.

The "spiritual Satanist" topic is currently one of my main projects, but not the only one. BlueGhast (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC) BlueGhast

This is a content dispute and not vandalism, GenoV84. Users are allowed to remove notices on their own talk page, as you were informed last time you posted here about them (it's not a good look to repeat the complaint, see WP:IDHT). For allegations of COPYVIO and POV pushing, please provide diffs. Please follow dispute resolution. Fences&Windows 02:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Galactica Mapping was soft-blocked for their username. After submitting an unblock request and not getting a timely response, they have threatened to sue. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I've obviously declined the unblock request they had posted. While I get the frustration that it's been a few weeks before it was reviewed, there's no reason to go that route. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I've also responded with their path forward. Canterbury Tail talk 18:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel the latest discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography under the built up tab started on there is a personal attack on me and my contributions. I feel the editor of that discussion has made an unfair comment about my editing and as I am disabled. I feel they are attacking my editing and writing. I know it can be seen as constructive criticism but they haven't clarified if they are being personal or not.

I have no issue with census or anything but I feel they have done nothing but critic me and as a disabled person. I feel it is a personal attack. Please could someone have a look into it.

@RailwayJG: your concern is being addressed at WP:AN. Please do not post in multiple forums. Tiderolls 15:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

a user is adding low level words on a page

Dear Admin,

someone is adding bad words on this page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_M._El-Khalil you can track him by checking the history of the page. i m the creator of the page and thus i need ur help to either ban this person or at least let him stop doing such low level acts

the user info is: https://whois-referral.toolforge.org/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=2A01:CB00:E1B:D500:A9C1:C0F6:BAF6:13C4

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabineantar (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's been almost a month since the vandalism took place, and the edit was more random text than bad words. Their other edits were the same and quickly reverted every time. There's nothing anyone can do here; you reverted the vandalism and that's all you could do so far out. Nate • (chatter) 16:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Saint Patrick's Day

Grossly offensive picture have been added and reverted by User:Supergamer99, request edits by user be hidden due to the nature of pictures. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 15:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Tommi1986, already blocked by LuK3 and I've made a request for it to be added to the bad image list - I'm pretty sure this image vandal is an LTA , but I can't pin down the master. Progamer99 (talk · contribs) is also possibly the same vandal per their username and their contribs to Google logo. Pahunkat (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

A crosswiki one as well - just reverted on eswiki Pahunkat (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Working --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Certainly seems like an LTA for sure. Thanks :) Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 15:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Progamer99 blocked too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

File deleted on commmons here. Pahunkat (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if User:Krabuck is associated with this but I received a vile email which I won't repeat just after Supergamer99 was blocked Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 16:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Tommi1986, I am not associated with this. I created an account to make edits to a botanical garden page that has changed its name. I'm still not entirely sure how all this works, so I'm hoping this is the right way to address your concern. I'm sorry you received a disturbing email. User:Krabuck — Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tommi1986:, I assume you're saying you got an email thru Wikipedia from Krabuck's account? Krabuck's edits don't look like the same person; that would be one hell of a good hand/bad hand account! It seems more likely to me that it's some kind of joe job. I was noticing that the blocked editor was welcoming people who had created an account very recently, possibly in order to sow suspicion? Krabuck's account is new too, from about that same timeframe. I wouldn't be too surprised if this was spoofed. If you're comfortable divulging your email address to someone else, you could forward (not copy/paste, but forward) the email you received to ArbCom, or a CU, or someone better positioned to handle private info than the hoi polloi at ANI. I believe it's possible for Stewards or Developers or something to see if Account A emailed Account B thru the WP email interface, although they can't see the content. ArbCom or a CU would know more. But I'd strongly advocate against anyone doing anything with the Krabuck account until it's clear it wasn't a joe job. My gut can be wrong, but that's what my gut tells me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: It's a strange one I'll grant that, the title of the email says 'Wikipedia email from user "Krabuck"' but in the body of the email, it says 'This email was sent by user "Supergamer99" on the English Wikipedia to user "Tommi1986".' so I'm not really sure what has gone on! I did look at Krabucks edits and like you say it seems unlikely to be the same but I thought I would mention it in case of an SPI later on. I may pass on to ArbCom just to ensure its not a problem at WP end! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 17:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no restriction on the subject line, most likely SG99 just put Krabuck's name in there. I'll bet if a CU checks SG99's email log (there's no valid reason to check Krabuck), they'll find an email send at exactly the right time. Curious to know how many other emails were sent. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh, that would explain it thanks Suffusion, I have never used the email facility so I am unaware of its workings! Therefore there is no point passing to ArbCom, and I would like to apologise to @Krabuck: for soiling your name, welcome to Wikipedia!! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 18:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

A reminder: I often see users giving porn vandals the Four Warnings(TM). This is not necessary. In fact, it's harmful, because it's time you could have spent reporting them instead. Just report as soon as possible, please. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I gave a 4im and reported, I never give the four warnings in cases like this. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 17:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tommi1986: I wasn't referring to you; I was just using this thread as a place to rant. But to be clear to everyone else, even a 4im is not needed before reporting. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: No worries, I assumed it wasn't directed at me, I agree with you that it should be reported immediately, I always tend to issue the 4im and report simultaneously, i guess its a habit haha! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 18:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:GIUTEDESCHI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have recently been editing Order of Prince Danilo I as it falls under my interest in orders and decorations. I removed many of the parts of it that were uncited, or were only cited from original research or interested parties. The page has been a victim of editing from sockpuppets of banned editors. Today I received the following message on my talk page that in my mind is a very clear legal threat. I have bolded the relevant part of the message.

"you have deleted authentic and truthful information. Dear Sir with the pseudonym Ortolan57, I am writing about your intervention that deleted all the news relating to the recipients of the Royal Order of Danilo I of the Royal House of Montenegro, and other news relating to the order and roles of the Royal House on the page news that you have deleted is news that comes from a source authorized to confirm. And not only is this Source authorized to confirm but it is the only one who can. In fact, I am the official representative of the royal house of Montenegro together with the diplomatic adviser of Prince Nicola Petrovich-Njegos, and only we own and manage the roles of all the orders of the royal house. His speech therefore showed that you are unaware of the current situation of the royal house. We therefore ask you to restore the correct information. I also remind you that the roles of the royal houses are private and are never published but are verifiable at the royal houses themselves, so demanding a link that confirms your claims is nothing short of a gross error. in bringing these changes I did not hide behind a pseudonym as you have but I put my name and surname and therefore I am an official source. Publications in the groups dedicated to the royal house are also available on social networks that report public photographs of the contributions you have canceled and therefore you want to deny the evidence of the facts that is visible in published photographs. If you persist in spreading erroneous news by deleting and not restoring the news posted by the royal house, the royal house of Montenegro will take legal action. Regards. GIUTEDESCHI"

Ortolan57 (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Defamatory content at Darren Moulding

Requesting rev/deletion. And a user block, of course. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Same vandalism at least as far back as December 2019. History of WP:BLP violations that may merit rev/deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Out of interest, I looked to see if that stuff was flagged by a filter. It was (log-only). The same filter (189 (hist · log)) catches edits like special:Diff/1012172971, special:Diff/1012167292 and special:Diff/1012200340, and particularly stuff like special:Contributions/2600:1010:B110:980D:F101:2F52:FAC2:88D9 (amongst lots of others). Probably need to do a better job at denying/deleting BLP vandalism/libel, somehow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

REVDELs done and blp has been semi protected. Email me any diffs that still need attention/REVDEL and I'll take a look. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There may be a little residue from earlier that December 7, but it looks like you got almost all of it, EvergreenFir. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-stop sock farming, meatpuppetry and long-term abuse by User:Karakeçi24

Please take a look at this SPI and its archive:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karakeçi24

There are also similar SPI cases and users which are WP:MEATPUPPET of Karakeçi24 in my opinion:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071 (strong similarity)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smokva26 (targets similar topics (see my report) plus the other articles; e.g. take a look at revision history of Subutai)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PapazaTaklaAttıranİmam
• Blocked accounts like HistoryOfTurkic, WikiTyrcaen, HistoriaTurce, Metehan_Uygur7, and some others

In my opinion, this a non-stop organized nationalistic quest. It seems these users work together via social media, internet forums, and chat rooms. Is there any solution to stop them? Is IP range block effective against them? Can we prevent them from sock farming and creating dozens of new accounts? Seriously their activity has become frustrating. e.g. see the revision history of Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681). They target and attack other editors. They post personal attacks and forum-like stuff on talk pages. How we should deal with them? Wario-Man ^talk 06:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be easier to prevent new users editing the relevant articles, although I realise that may also be trying to hit a moving target. Deb (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverting Trina Saha everytime by User:DasSoumik

Please help to stop DasSoumik from reverting contents of Trina Saha to back redirect. I have expanded to a full article from a redirect that was created in 2018 and reviewed by Onel5969. I declare that I have no conflict of interest and not paid to create the article. She is a well established actress from India and satisfies WP:ENT and passes WP:GNG. Also, no WP:PROMOTIONAL content is added. I have discussed with the user but he does not seems to listen and starts reverting. I have also requested for move protection at WP:RFPP as per [319]. Please help. Thank you 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. (Have you considered registering an account?) This isn't quite appropriate for this board -- you should go to WP:DRN instead, which is where we handle content disputes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: For some reasons I have decided not to create an account now as I am not a regular contributor. DasSoumik is not listening and he/she thinks anonymous editors means WP:COI or WP:UPE which is incorrect. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

DasSoumik has started to WP:VANDAL page Trina Saha and moving to draftspace etc. Please see the page log here. Already final warned and reported at WP:AIV. Please help to stop vandalism by DasSoumik. Thank you. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Please help Vaticidalprophet WhoAteMyButter or any admin. The user is keep reverting every time 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

So, DasSoumik isn't vandalizing Wikipedia under Wikipedia's definition of the term ("vandalism" on Wikipedia requires intent to disrupt). However, it does seem to me that DasSoumik should stop reverting/moving to draftspace and instead start a deletion discussion if they believe that the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. It's pretty late in the night for me right now, so I'm a little too tired to untangle the page histories, but it looks like there is also a cut-and-paste move that needs to be fixed between Draft:Trina Saha and Trina Saha. For now, I've gone ahead an left a message on DasSoumik's talk page asking them to stop reverting. Mz7 (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mz7: Can you apply move protection to avoid further disruption. Thank you. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's necessary. Currently, there already exists a page at Draft:Trina Saha, so even if the user wanted to move the article, they would not have the technical ability to overwrite the existing page history there. I've also left them a message on their user talk page asking them to stop, so I suspect they will simply stop after reading that message. Mz7 (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mz7: Also what is the rationale of saying This is article is promoting by an unregistered person, and this is clear that the parson os doing promotional work. So I am reverting back per [320]. It looks the editor is lacking WP:CIR. The user-page also says the editor is in class 12 and can be below of 18 years of age. So, WP:MINORS can apply. Thank you. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's take a step back here and wait for DasSoumik to respond to discussion. This is not an urgent issue by any means. They're also a relatively new editor, so I think we should cut them some slack. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, especially when they're new (on the other hand, you seem like you know a lot about Wikipedia's rules... out of curiosity, have you ever had an account in the past?). As far as the user page goes, there are no rules against minors editing Wikipedia (the essay you cited refers to articles about minors, not editors who are minors), so I don't think any direct action is needed as a result of that. Mz7 (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

WhoAteMyButter Thanks for the help. Mz7 thank you for resolving the issue with the author. I think this has resolved and this thread can closed. 2402:3A80:113B:6861:8851:BDC1:F0D2:56CC (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Something very odd is going on here, because all of the article's history prior to today appears to have been removed. Could someone who understands these things investigate and restore? RolandR (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have merged the history of Draft:Trina Saha into Trina Saha and deleted the draft which is now not performing any useful purpose. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Incivility

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 37.26.97.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See this edit summray and this one, for which there was a prior warning on their TP. MB 14:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced content at Mr. Big (American band)

• Jupiter 1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly editing the Mr. Big article without providing a WP:RS. He/she repeatedly adds their original drummer (who is deceased) to the current members section and claims the band hasn't broken up yet, but continues to not provide a reliable source, or proof/evidence, supporting this fact. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.by El_C --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) per usual... Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. El_C 16:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Jupiter 1999 reported by User:MetalDiablo666

Jupiter 1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly adding unsourced information over at Mr. Big-related articles, including Pat Torpey, as well as adding members in the incorrect order. I've repeatedly asked the user to provide a source for his/her changes, but has refused to do so. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• El C blocked him from editing one article for a week a day ago, so I'm pinging him since he is already familiar with the case. I wouldn't seem that the limited block did the trick, but I will leave that in his capable hands. Often times, MetalDiablo666, when an admin has recently sanctioned an editor and they need another look, it's faster just to go to the admin's page, or ping the admin in the report. You aren't required to, it's just usually faster since that admin knows the backstory. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dennis, but in hindsight, this block may have been too narrow. But, also, maybe not...? MetalDiablo666, they did end up providing a source in the end (diff), so are we not good now? El_C 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well then, based on what Dennis Brown and El_C just said, I guess the case is closed. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• I take it you're happy with the source and all is otherwise well now, then? El_C 15:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Lets play 2bwu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly Jupiter 1999, editing the same way as that user, and obviously creating multiple accounts as an excuse to evade a block after El_C prevented him/her from editing the Mr. Big article. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Still no answer to my question about their source, though, MetalDiablo666 — why is that? I need you to answer that directly, or I'm just gonna default to lifting both the protection and block. El_C 15:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: The reasons Jupiter 1999/Lets play 2bwu has refused to cite a source are he/she keeps adding Pat Torpey, who is deceased and technically a former member, and he/she said the break up was unsourced, when it actually is. The user obviously isn't coming to his/her senses. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• MetalDiablo666, ah, gotcha. Now I understand and am up to speed. Thanks. El_C 17:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

IP editor persistently adding "Decisive" to battle infoboxes

The use of "Decisive" to describes the result of a battle is deprecated per the instructions at Template:Infobox military conflict. Despite being informed of this, 65.255.138.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persists in adding it, and is pretty much all they have ever done since their first edit in 2019, except for a few minor improvements. FDW777 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Clearly a static IP, and no communication at all despite warnings; maybe this will finally have the desired effect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not very... decisive. --Izno (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Odd... even today's featured article used that term, 'decisive'. enjoyer|talk 01:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a very well-followed guideline. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Continued spamming, lack of communication and general NOTHERE behaviour from User:Ahmaddler

Despite a plethora of warnings from a large number of editors and a number of speedy deletions, User:Ahmaddler has persisted with creating the same article Halkawt zaher again and again and again. Each incarnation is exactly the same and the issues of promotion and notability are not addressed. There is likely some significant WP:COI/WP:UPE but they have made no declaration at all of that anywhere. They have already been blocked from editing Halkawt zaher but, annoyingly, this doesn't stop them from creating the article. Since they have recreated the spam article a further three times since the initial admin sanction and they have still not made any constructive edits since joining, I believe that a tougher sanction is needed. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(non admin comment) Agree with Spiderone, also possible SPI case here (to be raised in a few minutes at SPI) with a newly created account adding to Draft:Halkawt zaher to get around partial block it looks like to me. JW 1961 Talk 20:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that that definitely needs investigating. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Those with evidence to present may wish to contribute to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmaddler where two of us spotted different potential candidates in (currently) separate reports Fiddle Faddle 20:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated to what the SPI outputs, their edit filter log is concerning. IMO they are WP:NOTHERE. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this has continued again today, see Halkawt Zaher and Draft:Halkawt Zaher. Still no declaration of paid editing nor attempt to communicate. I agree with Victor that the user is WP:NOTHERE, especially because of their use of socks as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have spent a deal of time today chasing down more (many more) putative members of the sock drawer. 100% are NOTHERE

Paradoxically, HZ might even be notable, but I am not minded to create an attics eon him since I suspect paid editing. I've also tracked down a full set of uploads on Commons, and flagged them all for deletion. or a similar process Fiddle Faddle 18:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

user LSPWRDMAFIA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• LSPWRDMAFIA (talk · contribs)

New editor with three edits total:

1. [321] Making a defamatory statement against the subject of an article.
2. [322] Argues that Anything I have stated is public knowledge ...
3. [323] Threatening I’m going to report you for harassment and star a page for you and Wikipedia on social media to show how you operate.

Seems like WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLE to me. --Hipal (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Thedefender35 egregious and continued improper use of warning templates in inappropriate situations

Over the past few days, the user User:Thedefender35 has continually misused warning templates on user talk pages, creating confusion and difficulty for RPCs. Diff:[324] Multiple users have attempted to warn this user, to no avail.

The user has attempted to copy-paste RedWarn templates using the visual editor, resulting in a horrifying amalgamation of wikitext and unsigned warnings. This user appears to not care whether or not the user was previously warned, instead opting to create a new section in the user's talk page with a title saying "STOP RIGHT NOW".

Ordinarily, I might go straight to for this type of thing (I'm confident this would result in speedy action) if it weren't for the fact that I am almost certain the user is operating in good faith. The user has made multiple attempts to request coaching from editors and clearly would like to make a difference against vandalism. I'm not entirely sure where this post belongs so let me know if I need to repost it on a different noticeboard. Catalyzzt (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let this go for a day or two to see if a sincere effort is made to improve. The problem, in a nutshell is that this is a new editor, who doesn't yet have a good appreciation of the basics but wants to lay the law down to others. They may learn, but they need to get on it quickly or it may be a painful learning experience. Deb (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel partially responsible. I saw Thedefender35's edit summary here ("last warning before I report you"), and posted on their talk page about warning on user talk pages instead of in edit summaries. (I also recommended that they find a trainer at WP:CVUA) Thedefender35 then began posting warnings on talk pages inappropriately. I tried to give them some direction (this diff, threads "Question about warning" and "Warning"), but stopped when I felt like my approach was unproductive. Schazjmd (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Since they've been editing for about three days, that seems reasonable, though I have to say someone who comes roaring into any situation and immediately starts telling everyone they come into contact with that they're doing it wrong...possibly this is not a simple inexperience issue. —valereee (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the important thing to note is that the user has expressed *interest* in improving. This is definitely a case of "Good faith, bad approach." Catalyzzt (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This type of behavior, barging around arrogantly dictating to more experienced users,along with instantly becoming a wiki-cop even though they obviously don't know what they are doing needs to be nipped in the bud as quickly as possible. We've had cases in the past where people were lax with a new user behaving like this and they managed to become an incredible timesink for several years before finally being banned. That's not a good outcome for anyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thedefender35 (talk · contribs) Would anyone watching the situation please let me know if there is another problem. I will indefinitely block the user if no one sanctions first. It's fine to mentor people and wait until they reach enlightenment, but time sinks are corrosive to the community. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: Will do; I'll be watching this user closely, and I have a feeling they've got the message. Catalyzzt (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thedefender35 hasn't edited since this discussion was open. Can we wait on any action until they've had a chance to engage here? Schazjmd (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Of course. No one is going to sanction the editor unless problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  What John said. I just wanted to be clear that they need to be willing and able to change that behavior upon their return, just saying they are willing to isn't enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, we've gotten a reply of sorts [325]. If somebody nicer than me wants to explain that nobody told them to go away, but rather to slow down and listen to what others ave been trying to tell them, that could be a thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for my idiocy and will hereby leave Wikipedia to the people who know how to use it.Thedefender35 23:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

IPv6 spams Talk pages with diatribes about a WWI general

Possible range block needed. 2003:CF:BF2E:CB93:C57A:B1D9:F615:FA24‎ (talk · contribs) appears to be someone with a monomania about Romanian WWI general Aristide Razu, and spams unrelated talk pages with diatribes about Romania, Communism, and especially Aristide Razu, and signs as "AristideRazu" or similar. He first popped up on my watchlist with this edit at Talk:French Army, and has 13 other TP edits of identical size to other unrelated Talk pages today, which I've reverted. Yesterday he had this edit at Talk:Italy and this at Talk:Romania under a different IPv6. From December 10-12, he had a run of several dozen of these, under ‎2003:cf:bf12:d8d5:4dc4:16ff:818f:8d36 (talk · contribs) and 2003:cf:bf12:d849:9bb:e9c8:eb1f:948c (talk · contribs) and 2003:cf:bf12:d89d:6564:8747:4710:8449 (talk · contribs). I've followed him back to mid-September, and it seems to be spammy turtles all the way down: Special:Contributions/2003:CF:BF2E:CB93:C57A:B1D9:F615:FA24/36. This Talkspace search turns up a few more such pages, from 2018. The spamming IP self-identifies as a descendant of the general, in Talk:Aristide Razu/Archive 1 from 2010, where almost every discussion on the page is by the spammer. I'll notify at 2003...FA24. Mathglot (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This is apparently indeffed Aristiderazu (talk · contribs). Mathglot (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @JBW: because of this edit, removing TPA of this user in June 2020. Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for now but that's not a long-term solution. Deb (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

That range apparently includes some collateral: User talk:2003:CF:BF19:4380:20C7:556D:3A0C:61B3. Could we tighten the range and/or use an edit filter? Fences&Windows 10:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if we're going to range-block, there are definitely other users in the range I linked; that was my "discovery-range" link. If filters are possible, the search term is at least clear, and rare, which is good. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

All collateral damage from IP blocks is, of course, undesirable. However, I do not take the view that any risk at all of collateral damage is always a total bar on an IP block; the test is not "will this block cause any collateral damage?" but rather "will this block cause an amount of collateral damage anywhere near the same order of magnitude as the amount of unacceptable editing it will prevent?" It is unambiguously clear that this editor has been responsible for almost all editing from the stated IP range at least since June 2020, and a significant amount of it since at least as far back as 2018. There has been far more editing over that period from this person than from anyone else. My personal view is that in that situation a block for several years would be fully justified, standing to stop far more harmful editing than useful editing. However, I know from past experience that a significant proportion of editors disagree with that, holding the view that if there is any significant likelihood of any collateral damage at all IP blocks should at the most be made for a time much shorter than the time scale over which the disruptive editing has taken place. I have therefore made a compromise by blocking for six months, which is significantly less than the time scale over which the substantial majority of editing from the range has been from that one editor. Furthermore, a significant number of edits which may not have been by this editor have been unconstructive in various ways, so the likely ratio of collateral damage to benefit from the block is even lower.

(Incidentally, contrary to what for some reason some people tend to assume, I do know what it is like to suffer a collateral block. Many years ago I was prevented from editing due to a block on the IP address I was using, which was due to disruptive editing nothing to do with me. I did not at the time take the view that preventing me from editing because of someone else's disruption was a gross miscarriage of justice; I took the view that it was an unfortunate but necessary consequence of the need to prevent damage. It was an inconvenience, but I created an account, and I have never again suffered from any IP block, although there have certainly been occasions when I have edited from IP addresses subject to anon-only blocks. Over the 14 years and seven months since then I have observed numerous events which have confirmed and strengthened the view of the matter that I held then, and none which have given me any reason to move away from that view. Any other innocent would-be editor in the same situation in which I found myself can deal with it in the same way that I did. Nevertheless, since I firmly believe in following consensus even when one personally disagrees with it, I compromise by blocking for shorter periods than I think are justified.) JBW (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks by a SPA at Talk:Proud Boys

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Burgs2016 has been making repeated personal attacks at Talk:Proud Boys, for which I and another editor have already warned them. They are now continuing to make attacks despite both a level 4 and 4im warning. They have also been insisting that the article must be written following their own beliefs about "writing standards", despite the fact that these contradict Wikipedia policy.

• "I think this conversation here shows clearly that some people here are Antifa terrorists." 13:18, 16 March 2021
• "clearly you prefer biased writing" 14:11, 16 March 2021
• "You are sensitive. It's not a personal attack. It's true." 14:23, 16 March 2021
• "You guys have a clear agenda here... It's clear that writing standards of declined in the last few years, but this conversation is a disgrace." 14:35, 16 March 2021
• "Instead of crying about a perceived insult, it would be nice if people actually discussed my main concern, which is writing standards." 14:38, 16 March 2021
• "The word "integrity" is certainly not in some people's vocabulary." 16:10, 16 March 2021
• "Personally, I think everyone is radical at this point, bu this has nothing to do with the poor writing standards." 16:51, 16 March 2021

As for the continued insistence that the article be written according to their personal "writing standards" rather than Wikipedia policy, you can peruse basically any of that conversation, but you'll see it in "You guys are arguing based on Wikipedia rules, but I'm arguing solely based on writing standards." ([326]), "Secondary sources are not reliable sources. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. It has everything to do with poor writing skills." ([327]), etc.

The warnings are at User talk:Burgs2016#March 2021, and they've also been alerted to AP DS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I placed a 48-hour block for PAs past my warning before I saw this discussion. If they resume, the next block will be indefinite. This is a regular admin action for disruptive behavior and personal attacks on a talkpage that is plagued with SPAs making accusations of bad-faith edits against experienced editors, not to mention a steady stream of drive-by griping about the way the media treats the Proud Boys. Acroterion (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User has continued to lash out on their talk page.[328][329] — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

User is adding legal threats [330] Nightenbelle (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I revoked his talk page access for the duration of the block. --Jayron32 18:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And I've made the block indefinite, based on their behavior after the block. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

2600:1702:760:1680:5d9b:9e2b:243:5749 and English variants

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2600:1702:760:1680:5d9b:9e2b:243:5749 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've recently noticed this user making unnecessary changes between English variants, most commonly from British to American, in various articles, seemingly showing no respect for a global encyclopedia. No effort to discuss when contested has been made, ever; this IP seems to have never used a Talk page. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this person is a problem. They reorganized Child singer into two groups: American and Foreign, which is ridiculously US-centric. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of a week. The /64 has a prior block for vandalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive user- false block summaries/warnings, disruptiveness/edit warring over files

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RabbitFanon2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Honestly not sure what should be done here, but seemingly WP:NOTHERE and/or doesn't understand what they are doing is wrong.

False block summaries/warnings:

It quite clear this user is not an administrator and cannot block, yet posts block messages as if they are the ones who blocked someone, or are just randomly posting block messages on talk pages of those not blocked.

• [331]
• [332]
• User talk:2607:FEA8:B460:5D6B:990C:D94E:3E52:C86

They are also copying/pasting warning messages of other users, such as here.

Disruptive/file edit warring:

Just look at any of the recent files they've uploaded and it should be pretty clear, especially through the edit histories- such as here. When files of theirs are listed for deletion, they simply remove the deletion notice and add hidden notes asking to not delete it, even when it's a bot adding the tags.

Seems like a block or stern warning may be needed for this, I'm not quite sure what else can be done for this. Magitroopa (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, see their filter log. Magitroopa (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, blocking now. Any unblock will have to address all the myriad issues you've raised. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Talk page access may need to be revoked. See this. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I took care of it, TPA removed and the page reverted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

‎Wikinformadora at Counting On‎

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Counting On‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:‎Wikinformadora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

‎Wikinformadora insists on adding unsourced and poorly sourced names and dates of birth (among other claims) at Counting On‎. A similar issue was discussed at BLPN (where the article was mentioned) and the consensus was to remove this content as WP:BLP and WP:MOS violations. I've pointed Wikinformadora to that discussion, notified them about discretionary sanctions, issued two warnings, and discussed the issues at their talk page. I've also reverted their edits 3 times today per BLP, so I'm bringing this issue here. (I won't be reverting further, of course.) BubbaJoe123456 removed the content again while I was typing this out, so we're good there. Still, I'm not sure that Wikinformadora should be editing any biographical articles until they understand our policies. Woodroar (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Perennial problem. Protection upgraded to WP:ECP. El_C 02:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of references

At The Maxwellians several book reviews have been removed and a "no references" tag attached to the article. Request for explanation at Talk not answered. Rgdboer (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

So, firstly, you have not advised Omnipaedista of this discussion per the large red banner at the top of the page; I have done so for you. Second, have you attempted to message Omnipaedista on their talk page? Not everyone watchlists every article they edit, and some people edit from mobile or turn pings off, so you cannot necessarily assume that people will see pings. It's entirely possible they simply have not seen the message. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted Omnipaedista's edits for the moment, because the reviews cited seem appropriate and there's a substantial number of them, so WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't seem like it's relevant. However, I don't hold a strong opinion about that, just strong enough to restore the article's status quo ante so that Rgdboer and Omnipaedista can discuss the dispute on the article's talk page and see if they can come to some consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE user, no luck at AIV

WVT96 (talk · contribs), primarily disruptive. I asked for a block last night at AIV, to no avail. AIV tends to be a graveyard at night. Maybe we'll fare better here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

173.68.165.114's edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am reporting myself here, as some Wikipedian considered my edits to 2021 North China sandstorm vandalism. My edit was reverted and I was warned not to make edit to that articles. I am not sure how and whether that's considered a vandalism so I report myself here. If that is I may stop editing that article. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newbie who is a Looshpah

What do you think of [333]? Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Spidey senses definitely tingling, though the WP:SERVICE component of this is trivial (and you should not have removed it from their userpage). I guess we'll wait and see about whether it develops from WP:TE into WP:NOTHERE, outright (again, likely). El_C 12:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Banned user blame and Shock blame

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi All I am a new editor written a Draft Ignite India I have been continuously blamed by another editor that I am a banned user . I want to state that I am not a banned user and shock . I have written article purely on information proposal . It’s not a paid article. This is purely based on my own research. Please admin remove delegation tag and approve this article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omsaipower2021 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/EditorF - MrOllie (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Would someone please settle this by create protecting the article and Draft versions of Ignite India‎ and Ignite India‎ Education, (and Draft:IGNITE INDIA EDUCATION if this is case sensitive). Repeated recreation of these is the focus of these socks. - MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Bonus points for vandalizing the salt tag on their way out. Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Creation protected indefinitely. El_C 22:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range issues with IPv6 editor on ViacomCBS-related articles

• 2603:9008:1C80:BA76:E8F0:7C4C:DEFD:6802/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Karrotfan22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the last several months, the above Spectrum IPv6 range has been propagating unsourced and overall incorrect information across a wide range of articles dealing with the topics of ViacomCBS, which has been a longtime sore spot here on the 'pedia thanks to the existence of Nickelodeon and Viacom's other cable networks and their programming lists and the vandalism which comes with them. Their vandalism even dates back to articles such as Warner-Amex Satellite Entertainment (which was never touched by VCBS or the first merged Viacom/CBS company), which has been in a revert/restore war for months as this range asserts WP:OWN behavior with its topics. I only became aware of it through the deletion discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nickelodeon Networks, which the named account asserts is a real division, but is actually a creation out of whole cloth using a number of sources (and I suspect may be a sock of the Spectrum range; they've been crufting ViacomCBS infoboxes and templates themselves). @IceWelder: was the one to bring this issue to me since they deal with this type of vandalism more than I do, but didn't have time to build a case about it. I'm asking for someone to look this over; IW suspects that the damage to these articles may be so great, that a WP:TNT approach to before November 2020 for reversion may need to be taken. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(Also @Trivialist:, who looking at contribs has been dealing with them also.) Nate • (chatter) 00:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. I would advocate a block to give us ample time to sort out the mess that the user made. Karrotfan22 might or might not be related (should be CheckUser'd) but has performed similar edits. IceWelder [✉] 16:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by User:Julia Domna Ba'al

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Previous WALLOFTEXT by same user

Users User:JJNito197 and User:Onceinawhile continuous disruptive editing and major rework of article Arab Christians User:JJNito197 is failing to see the violations of Wikipedia policies WP:DISRUPTSIGNSand WP:OR that he has been committing for the last 2 1/2 months in his major rework on the article Arab Christians in the opened discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab_Christians#Same_issues_keep_being_brought_back_into_the_article_without_consensus_after_long_discussions_in_the_past. User User:Onceinawhile seems to his main supporter and the duo is exhibiting Tag Team and Meatpuppet behaviors as per WP:MEATPUPPET and WP:TAGTEAM as you can see in the newly open discussion Both User:JJNito197 and Onceinawhile decided to ignore the previous open discussion on the issues here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab_Christians/Archive_8 and instead embarked in their major unsourced rework of the article for the last two months violating WP:HANDLE and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and skipping their attempt to build consensus through the open discussion. You can see all the unsourced additions and violations of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR that JJNito197 has done in his rework and which User Onceinawhile came pretty quickly to his rescue and reverted back here- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Christians&diff=1011781686&oldid=1011780064 and user JJNito197 also just chose to delete the message I left him in is talk page reminding him of Wikipedia policies he is violating as can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JJNito197&diff=1011797103&oldid=1011796851 The following is just a more detailed elaboration of their 3 main WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR violations. You can skip reading them if you prefer just to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Christians&diff=1011781686&oldid=1011780064 1) Both users seem to have formed a duo to change the definition given by academic and reliable sources of what an Arab Christian is and means and claim that being an Arab is JUST an identity without providing any source for such a claim. Onceinawhile also decided to just removed original source the article had which is https://web.archive.org/web/20041105161338/http://www.arabicbible.com/christian/intro_arab_christians.htm citing the "author has extremist views" as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Christians&diff=1012225745&oldid=1012176300) violating WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR When provided them more academic sources with the accepted definition of what Arab Christian is such as: https://teachmideast.org/articles/arab-middle-eastern-and-muslim-whats-the-difference/ , https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1974/04/discovery/who-is-an-arab?lang=eng As well as the sources included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_identity#Categories, they are just choosing to keep ignoring them claiming that they lead to racial essentialism and that being Arab is JUST an identity unrelated to race and ascendance. 2) As part of JJNito197 and Onceinawhile's ultimate goal to make the readers believe that all Lebanese Melkites and Orthodox identify as Arab, including those of the diaspora, they have been adding personalities and added a cute table of political personalities they claim identify as Arab here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians#Diaspora. One example of their unsourced additions is Nassim Nicholas Taleb when Nicholas Taleb has himself proclaimed to be completely hardcore Anti-Arab and identifies with the Levantine-Phoenician pre-Arab identity as can be read here http://coevolutionist.com/muse/anti-arab-bigotry-ahistorical/. JJNito197 even added Nicholas Taleb to his little collage that he keeps reworking here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians#/media/File:Arab_Christians_alternative_collage.jpg again violating WP:OR 3) JJNito197 then created another cute table here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians#Affiliated_communities where he adds all the numbers of the adherents of those religious communities, including the adherents of those Christian denominations IN THE DIASPORA AS WELL (which are not genetically descendants of Arabs nor speak Arabic and are not culturally Arab) and have not added a single source for all those numbers for EACH of his YES, NO, MIXED inventions he added violating WP:OR once again I am here to advocate for full reversal of all the rework that this two disruptive users have done in the last two months and banning both of them from editing in this article. Onceinawhile is a very old editor and after 10 years in Wikipedia should know and adhere to Wikipedia's policies and set an example, which is definitely not what he is doing in this article and lately seems to be gaining a reputation inside and outside of Wikipedia for reworking articles, removing sourced content and adding unsourced content as can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onceinawhile#Final_warning and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onceinawhile#Have_you_seen_this? . JJNito197 seems to be his devout tag meat and meatpuppet as of lately from what it looks like.Chris O' Hare (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC) This WP:WALLOFTEXT is unlikely to result in any kind of action. Might want to try making a short, to-the-point post instead. But this really looks like an editing dispute, not a policy violation. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC) I have condensed the text. This is not a content dispute. I am here to report two disruptive user committing a major rework of the article Arab Christians full of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR violations with the intent to push their Arabism agendas.Chris O' Hare (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Julia Domna Ba'al is going around cherry picking sources violating WP:CHERRYPICKING and distorting what the sources that he/she adds to cite her disruptive edits actually say, violating WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR, in order to push her Arabist/Arabism agenda and get away with her cultural appropriation of ancient personalities of Syro-Phoenician descent/origin to make it seem as if it is an ethnically Arab legacy. In almost of all the "citations" the user does, the user doesnt link the source so that it can be verified easily and the disruptive editing less easily seen and reported.

One example of User:Julia Domna Ba'al disruptive editing is what I have reported here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philip_the_Arab#None_of_the_sources_cited_really_say_Philip_the_Arab_was_an_%22ethnic_arab%22_and_the_disruptive_edits_on_ancient_personalities_of_Syro-Phoenician_descent_will_be_reported

User:Julia Domna Ba'al and other meat puppet editors and tag teammates of this user have done the same on a lot of the personalities of Phoenician/Syro-Phoenician descent from Hellenized Phoenicia and Roman Syria/Roman Phoenicia for quite a while now by taking away their Syro-Phoenician ancestry from their Wikipages and/or adding that they were "Arab", "ethnic Arab", "Nabatean" or "Syrian" (while linking it to todays Syrians which is not the same as Syro-Phoenician) while adding "sources" that supposedly say that as can be seen as well many many of their edits.

All the personalities from Hellenized or Roman Phoenicia and of Phoenician, Punic, Sabian (which has been established they were originally from Mount Lebanon and Baalbeck by plenty of authors) on which this is being done are also being listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians#Notable_people and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrians#Leaders_and_politicians as if their ancient Syro-Phoenician ancestry is the same as todays Syrians which is incorrect and disruptive editing to steal the ancient Syro-Phoenician legacy and achievements for their Arab and today's Syrians friends.

This disruptive editing on these ancient personalities Wikipages have been going on for quite a while now by User:Julia Domna Ba'al and her/his meat puppet teammates.Chris O' Hare (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Chris O' Hare, not be abrasive, but how many of these DISRUPTSIGNS reports should we be expecting from you today? El_C 23:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the Chris's definition of "meat puppets" here is "editors who agree with each other but not with me". Furthermore, I can only see one editor likely to be sanctioned here with repeated personal attacks on others like this one of many long-winded rants ("And perhaps your tag mate and meat puppet JJNito197 will become a celebrity too like you. Team tagging and meat puppetry, good for your international celebrity status?" I also notice that User:Julia Domna Ba'al hsn't edited for ten days and no discussion seems to have been attempted. This is a collaborative encylopedia. Please treat it like one. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think its disrespectful and discriminatory to certain background/nationalities that Wikipedia is not doing anything about the issue at hand.

Is this persistent disruptive mislabeling of ethnicities not being stopped here in Wikipedia because Lebanon and the Levant are semitic non-western countries/area so it “it doesnt matter that much” whats what? If a trend carried on by a number of editors of mislabeling Italian over Swiss for example was being doing consistently here in Wikipedia would that be stopped in a heartbeat? Most likely

My report built into a walloftext because I want to make the noticeboard more aware of an issue that has been going on for a while and is getting worse and worse and will likely continue doing so since nothing is being done about it. I hoped that giving details of how this disruptive are taking place and being done will help the noticeboard see things better.Chris O' Hare (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:El_C: Instead of making short demeaning questions to someone that is actually taking the time to provide evidence of disruption to improve the very same website you come to for information, you should be praising and thanking me for my contribution. Its actually people like you that should be put down for their useless comments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris O' Hare (talk • contribs)

Well, that escalated quickly. No, I won't thank you. These walls of text are a bit of a DISRUPSIGN, themselves, in case you weren't aware... El_C 14:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Black Kite About User:Onceinawhile I clearly said that at the beginning of the report that he is EXHIBTING meat puppet and tag team behaviors because of how he came to revert for JJNito197 (perhaps to cincumvent the 3 revert rule together? as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Christians&offset=20210313030406%7C1011835845&action=history) and takes over my discussion with him so quickly and is so invested. He and JJNito197 both failed to engage in the previous open discussion for consensus again exhibiting more tag team behaviors as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tag_team#Tag_team_characteristics So If he is acting like one he leaves me no choice but to call him one

I see you are also pointing out my "personal attacks" without mentioning that it was Onceinawhile that first stated with his passive aggressive attack "I will say one thing. A number of your comments appear to be underpinned by your own experience as "as [a] member of the [Lebanese Christian] diaspora from 1880-1920", when Im not even a religious person. He is the one that first started the attack to dismiss and discredit me calling him and JJNito297 on their disruption as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack?

Saying he has become a celebrity outside of Wikipedia is not an attack but a fact as seen here https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/project-wiki-exposes-how-wikipedia-is-breeding-armies-of-anti-semites/2021/01/01/ and only accusations of behavior that lack evidence are considered attacks as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack?

How come I see you warning me of personal attack when they are not according to the policy but I dont see you warning any of the editors I have reported after all the disruptive unsourced editing and violations they have been breaching? I find your behavior one-sided which makes you less credible as a mediator in this dispute. Because you are not showing independent judgment and not enforcing warnings equally you are exhibiting tag-teamish and meat-puppet like behavior in this dispute and I will be reporting you on this if you continue to do so.Chris O' Hare (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Black Kite: "editors who agree with each other but not with me" not even that. No one has ever argued with me while I discussed matters against 5+ people (mostly sockpuppets), until an admin comes in and bans them. Unless OP thinks I'm a sock for an admin account? Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen you before and we never interacted and I don't think we ever even edited the same article. Meanwhile the last two "discussions" I had were with someone notorious for edit warring and sockpuppetry (see). So you calling me out of the blue and saying roughly the same things as the other did while engaging in the same activities (Nationalistic POV pushing, edit warring, filling your edit history with generic gnome-like, hack n slap, edits), and changing your name right when the other socks got banned, is very suspicious. Do I know you? Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"In almost of all the "citations" the user does, the user doesnt link the source so that it can be verified easily and the disruptive editing less easily seen and reported."

This 100% false statement can get you warned or banned you know. Don't lie and accuse other people of being exactly the opposite of what they are. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

According to User:Julia Domna Ba'al no one has ever argued with her about the issue which could not be further from the truth and keeps showing more of her disruptive ways. Here you can see an an "exchange" I had with her three months ago on another ancient personality she assigned "ethnic Nabatean" to his wikibio https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollodorus_of_Damascus&diff=993492534&oldid=991770378. She went ahead an reverted it obviously https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollodorus_of_Damascus&diff=993567415&oldid=993492898

Here you can see an example of all the editors that constantly argue with Julia Domma over her disruptive edits that she continues to get away with and nobody is sanctioning her for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollodorus_of_Damascus&action=history And this is just one of the numerous personalities that she has decided to disrupt and WP:HANDLE and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR

Seeing what she comments in the edit history of the articles she disrupts and how she constantly denigrates users when she disruptively reverse their edits, I had not decided to engage in any sort of consensus building with her in any talk page since she clearly lacks the willingness and the ability to do so.

Since right away she resorts to personal attacks without any evidence whatsoever as you can see in her last reply here and in the Philip the Arab page, I have just decided to create an example of her chronic disruptive editing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philip_the_Arab#None_of_the_sources_cited_really_say_Philip_the_Arab_was_an_%22ethnic_arab%22_and_the_disruptive_edits_on_ancient_personalities_of_Syro-Phoenician_descent_will_be_reported and just report her.

Again, I have not called Julia Domma a meat puppet, I said that there seems to be a group of editors (IP and registered) editing on the same kind of articles and adding the same ethnic labels and identities. Whether they are colluding and acting together as meat puppets/tag teammates or separately is sometimes difficult to differentiate.Chris O' Hare (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You're wasting everyone's time with this. I had two arguments with your friends on talk pages and in each time admins came in and banned all other users. Example 1, Example 2. I didn't remember our interaction from 3 months ago because you didn't send it to the talk page. What was wrong with it anyway? The source EXPLICITLY calls him Nabataean. Other than this source, the Director of the Italian Institute of Culture in Damascus, quoted in a book written by the head of Antiques in Syria, said his style stemmed from his cultural roots as a Nabataean. You deny all this and you didn't go to the talk page, instead harboring some vendetta to unleash months later? You were the one who lied about me, claiming I don't source my claims. You call me names and accuse me of things and call me out in articles. You should relax and try to be objective. If you are a nationalist who is here to prop up their (perceived) ethnicity, that doesn't mean everyone else is the same. This place has rules and you're better off learning them. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An addendum: one Sidoc appeared about the time this discussion was resolved, making a statement that he was a sock puppet of the sanctioned editor. No other edits have been made from this account. A checkuser was requested, but declined; I am not the only person who draws this conclusion. (If not a sock puppet, then this account was pretending to be someone else with the intent of being disruptive.) For this reason I have indefinitely blocked this account. -- llywrch (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Alarm bells

1x00x666x893 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• (1) New user, account created today
• (2) Almost all of their 20 article edits have been reverted, by multiple editors; only 2 remain un-reverted [334]
• (3) Said edits are a combination of semi-vandalism, poor writing, good fixes, and Marxist PoV
• (4) Two warnings have been placed on their talk page already, in 3 hours of editing, [335], [336]
• (5) Both warnings have been deleted by the editor [337], [338]

Don't wanna WP:BITE, but to me, this adds up to nothing good. Your mileage may vary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. I recommend an indef block. pandakekok9 (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Support WP:INDEF block. We give wide latitude for new editors making mistakes, both technical and policy mistakes, however this person exercises incredibly poor judgment, by focusing solely on one topic (socialist movements/thinkers), with a WP:POV agenda and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Their vendetta to mark Kautsky as revisionist strongly indicates to me WP:NOTHERE, and their blanking of any feedback on their talk page, without engaging suggests WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. ~ Shushugah (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked the use for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Good block (commie-approved). Shushugah, if I may OT somewhat, this is common to a vulgar analysis of communist theory. Because, according to modern, 20th Century Anti-revisionism, Kaustky certainly was deemed a key revisionist by Soviet (and later Chinese) authorities. But during the 19th Century, he could also be seen as a key anti-revisionist in the sense of standing against the advent of Bernstein's evolutionary socialism, re-affirming his own stance in favour of a revolutionary path. So, when this editor writes that: In 1880 he joined a group of German revisionist socialists — that is an historical fabrication, which I don't understand the reason for. This, at the height of Kautsky's correspondence with Marx and Engels, no less! I also remember reading somewhere that, at one point, Lenin called Kautsky the "Pope of Marxism." Kudos goes to the Britannica's https://www.britannica.com/topic/revisionism-Marxism which actually navigates some of these nuances rather well for three brief paragraphs (room for improvement, but still pretty good). El_C 12:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the history/ideology lesson. The devil is in the details. (Or, to put it another way, split the stick, and there is Jesus.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Long-term disruption from Zerolandteam385

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Zerolandteam385 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefblocked in September 2020 for CIR issues. Since then, the user has continued editing through a wide array of presumably-dynamic IPs and a steady stream of sockpuppets.

These IPs inlcude:

• 2A02:587:DC29:4D00:6D79:5DD7:B1CC:23E9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2A02:587:DC29:4D00:F932:5756:97D7:C8CF (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2A02:587:DC0D:7F00:68CF:C937:8C0C:7D1A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2A02:587:DC0D:7F00:8DD7:336F:451A:43D5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:dc0a:c200:5040:92e:54de:6bf (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:dc0d:7f00:7948:cc6b:1165:b419 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2A02:587:DC63:A00:B098:3D30:89CD:D19D (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2A02:587:DC63:A00:D888:846F:A6E2:231A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:dc07:e100:9547:ebb8:2e8d:858e (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:dc07:e100:909:7be1:585c:7c6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:dc2d:9900:4c21:1957:f744:37f6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Those are just from the past couple months and I'm sure there are some that I missed. All resolve to Trikala, Greece.

Is there any possibility of a rangeblock to alleviate the disruption? --Sable232 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

2a02:587:dc00::/41 looks as though it would do the job - I assume the block evader is the one obsessed with vehicles. Would another admin check this out please? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Support range block, FWIW. In general, I believe it would be a good idea to require editors to sign up after five edits from any IP. Currently I would say that about half of my editing time is spent dealing with vandalism or confused IP edits; requiring registration would enable me to at least attempt communicating with these editors.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have checked the editing of the range. The following facts are clear: (1) Zerolandteam385 has been allowed to get away with persistent block-evasion and huge amounts of disruptive editing over a long period, in a way that would have led to blocks long ago had it been done via one or more accounts, rather than IP editing; (2) for almost a year the vast majority of the editing has been from Zerolandteam385; (3) even among the smaller number of edits that look as though they may not have been from Zerolandteam385, a significant proportion have been unconstructive. In view of these facts I have blocked the range for six months. JBW (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent Vandalism on List of West Coast hip hop artists

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This has been going on for six weeks: an unregistered user keeps adding artists from elsewhere in the United States, particularly New Orleans, to the List of West Coast hip hop artists. These edits are routinely reverted. user:Malcolmxl5 was good enough to protect the page for one week, but shortly after that time was up, the vandal reappeared. Is it possible to protect this page again, perhaps for a longer period this time? Instant Comma (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected for one month. The user is evading a block at 174.215.160.0/20 so a further block will be appropriate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV, disruptive editing and conduct from User:Usagidot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Usagidot (talk · contribs) has edited several pages related to the WWII comfort women to remove references to sexual slavery in favor of voluntary prostitution. For example here [339], here [340] and here [341]. I and other editors have engaged in long discussions with him about neutral point of view and verifiability, mostly on his talk page and the Ianfu talk page. He refuses to listen, instead reverting and posting statements like "You have to show me completely perfect evicence. Where is it?" and "If you have any complaints to me, you must remove that page, because he doesn't understand Japanese language at all. He seems like he just want to insult Japan and its people without any compelling evidence. I am asking where the evidence is. But he has no evidence. Do wikipedia and you accept false page?".

To me this seems like an editor who is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia; rather, he's here to Right Great Wrongs and will not be convinced otherwise. Knuthove (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Knuthove I have been asking where the evidence is. However, you seem like you don't have it, right? That is why, you snitch on me on wikipedia. I am telling you that former comfort women sued Japan in 1991 for their unpaid balances. And I HAVE the complaint. Moon ok-ju demanded over $110,000 . And Ianfu means prostitutes in Japanese. Comfort women was translated from Ianfu. Of course, job posts in Korean and Japanese still exist. Why is it so difficult showing your compelling evidence to me? You shouldn't create uncertain page. Usagidot (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)usagidot

Looks like Usagidot is now blocked, so I guess this is resolved. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please stop preempting me! I've blocked Usagidot indefinitely for promoting historical fabrications, which appear to be part of a discreditable (whitewashing) WP:FRINGE advocacy effort employing original research. El_C 18:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I assume this is related to the recent paper published by a Harvard Law School professor making those same claims. [342] Definitely a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, Harvard prof or not. (Then again, this guy is a Harvard Law professor as well, and he advocates that the US should become a Catholic theocratic state.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Then again again, this guy is also a Harvard Law professor, and he's, ya know, a real piece of work. I had a friend, a Harvard official, who used to say that Harvard keeps Dershowitz around because they need an ego big enough to act as a yardstick against which all the other Harvard egos can be measured. EEng 08:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you mean a Harvard Yard-stick. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incidents involving User:Sundayclose

I've been editing Wikipedia for many years, focusing on relatively simple improvements to articles I happened to be reading. Recently I made what I thought was a non-controversial improvement [343] to the Wayne Williams article. User:Sundayclose reverted the edit with no edit summary or discussion on the article talk page [344] and added a warning [345] to my talk page. I tried to discuss the matter with him [346] but his replies were not responsive to my points and almost immediately became abusive [347] [348] [349] and everything has been downhill from there, although after I made a fresh proposal on the talk page [350] and received some reinforcement from User:Anastrophe (with whom I had no prior contact) we did at least achieve a good and apparently stable outcome with that article.

But before and after that result, User:Sundayclose has directed many demands, threats, and insults against me [351] and has gone on a rampage of reverting recent edits of mine [352] [353] [354] [355] [356] in an exhibition of spite, revenge, and sheer vandalism. I believe all five of those reverts were unjustified, particularly in being deliberate violations of WP:NOCITE.

I think if you look through his edit history you will that the vast majority of his edits are constructive, but you will also find many other incidents where he has made harmful edits, mostly unexplained and unjustified reverts like the one with which he first engaged me, including four reverts in two days on the Carl Gugasian article [357] [358] [359] [360] without explaining on the talk page his issues with material he was removing (in this case, my issue with his reverts was that he swept up good-faith contributions by editors who weren't even the actual target of his wrath). He seems to target IP users and is prone to throwing warnings and threats on talk pages even when the user was clearly making good-faith edits. I also found many more examples of his edits that harmed Wikipedia by removing good-faith contributions from other editors, but I did not attempt to correct any more of them once I realized he doesn't respond well to criticism.

I've made a very serious effort to stay polite throughout this whole thing, but User:Sundayclose seems bent on making it impossible for me to contribute to Wikipedia. If I'm in the wrong here, in whole or in part, I welcome the correction, because I want to be a good contributor and not a problem for anyone. But I think User:Sundayclose must be told to cease this pattern of abusive editing. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

67.188.1.213, your edit summary "Want to go for four?" makes clear you're aware you are edit warring. 3RR isn't a right. Also, you followed Sundayclose to Carl Gugasian and then have the chutzpah to accuse them of hounding you. Keep that up and you'll be blocked. If an edit is challenged for not having a source... find a source! You can consider this your final warning, unless another admin would care to block you already.

Sundayclose, IP editors are people too. Please be less confrontational and don't go overboard on the templates and rhetoric when you're in an editing dispute. Fences&Windows 19:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Sundayclose (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, neither of you edited Talk:Carl Gugasian. You need to stop reverting each other and both making revenge edits, and start talking to each other with respect. Fences&Windows 20:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Sundayclose (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

With respect to the original issue at Wayne Williams, the IP's edit was good and well-explained, and I agree with the IP that Sundayclose was aggressive and non-responsive. I had a similar recent experience with Sundayclose: a lot of combativeness and repeated failure to engage with the arguments raised by other editors. (I have not looked more deeply into the present question than reading the IP's talk-page and the original reverted diff.) --JBL (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Sundayclose (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to have to concur with the people critical of Sundayclose. I myself noticed some problematic contributions. There is this editor by the name of Barbaro Reyes Cho (who may now actually be a sock) who has had the vast majority of their mostly constructive edits reverted by Sundayclose. Thisis just one of them. I almost filed a report myself when I saw Sundayclose open up the editor's talk page with the harshest possible warning, but decided against it when I saw that the other editor in question may be a sock. Now that it appears that they are doing this to other editors, I feel that some action might need to be taken. I haven't seen much of Sundayclose in recent weeks, but I am still sure that I assessed the situation correctly. Please correct me if I am wrong. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Scorpions13256, you may restore constructive edits made by a blocked or banned as you see fit - you take on responsibility for the content. However, mass reversion of block or ban evasion is permitted: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule", see WP:EVASION. Fences&Windows 01:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I'm aware of WP:EVASION. This complaint by the IP just caught me by surprise. I had no idea that Sundayclose was doing this to non-socks. For the record, I don't plan on reverting that Barbaro guy's edits, because I am almost certain that he is a sock. I'm uneasy but tolerant about Sundayclose being aggressive with socks, but I am not okay with what seems like them following other editors around. I am pretty busy, and I don't have time to stick my nose in complicated areas, but I feel that Sundayclose may need to tone down what they are doing. Good night. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, sorry. Sundayclose, please don't jump the gun on reverting before SPI is complete and/or the account is blocked and please read and acknowledge what Scorpions13256 had said here. Fences&Windows 10:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: I acknowledge what has been said here. As a point of information, but not an attempt for an excuse, I will point out for other editors that Cadeken is a prolific sockmaster (one sock is Barbaro Reyes Cho) who has used multiple IPs located in or near Tulare, California. The WP:DUCKTEST is usually obvious. The edits are to the very same articles (usually pertaining to school shootings, mass shooting, and other violent crimes; some to trains and railroads). I have always checked the location of the IPs to confirm. If one of Cadeken's socks is blocked (and sometimes even when they haven't been blocked), the IPs emerge to make the edits. Sometimes in a weak attempt to cover up socking, a Cadeken sock will revert one of the IPs with an edit summary similar to "unsourced" or "block evasion", but then the edit is later reinstated. It's a never-ending process. I even tried to reason with a Cadeken sock to not edit for six months then attempt the WP:Standard offer; that had no effect. Although I will refrain from removing those edits, I think many of them will fall through the cracks because it's understandably difficult at SPI to get a confirmation of socking by an IP. Again, I'm not trying to make any excuses for myself, just pointing out a problem that other editors should be aware of. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been watching the edits made by Sundayclose since I raised my concerns here, and I continue to see many edits against policy, particularly POV-based reversions of good-faith contributions. The guideline at WP:NOCITE is clear that even unreferenced claims should not be reverted when they are made in good faith. A Citation Needed tag is always preferable in such cases. The essay at WP:ROWN reinforces this guideline with further arguments why reversion should not be the first response to a good-faith contribution. Sundayclose does not limit himself to unreferenced claims, however, and he continues to intimidate other editors, especially IP editors, with threats and demands on their user talk pages. I think some previously uninvolved administrator should take a serious and objective look at this user's edit history and find a way to get Sundayclose to focus on his valuable contributions to reducing vandalism rather than trying to impose his POV on other editors. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

IP 67, as you state WP:NOCITE is a guideline. WP:ROWN is not a policy or a guideline; it is an essay. WP:V is a policy; unsourced material may be challenged and removed. I was pleased when you provided sources that I requested for some of your edits, and when you explained your objection on talk pages instead of edit warring. I was hoping you would call a truce after making numerous unsourced edits and being requested to provide a source, and making false accusations of vandalism when I removed unsourced material, and making outrageously false statements about me to another editor. But apparently you can't let go of the urge to seek revenge. You and me getting into a pissing contest is not good for you or me or Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Glynn Lunney

Glynn Lunney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is no reliable source on his death yet, but IPs persist. I filed a RFPP a bit ago; [361] could someone take faster action on this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I've now protected for 3 days. Paul August ☎ 20:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

NASA has now confirmed the death - [362]. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 00:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

User using script to make edits with abusive summary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reywas92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user appears to have a major problem with articles that include a written number in parenthesis after the corresponding Arabic numeral, and has taken to using a script to spread his thoughts about the users who make these types of edits. Surely this is an abuse of the script? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours while I look at it. Deb (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deb: Unless one is writing a legal disclaimer of some sort, there's no good reason to put in any of our articles something like "There were three (3) little pigs...". In some case "three" would be the most appropriate, in some cases "3" would be the most appropriate, but there are really no circumstances under which "three (3)" is appropriate for Wikipedia.

Yes, the edit summary is needlessly abusive, and using a script to make mass changes without approval from BAG is not good, but the edits themselves are good, IMHO.Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. The question is whether the edit summaries are offensive, which they are. All Reywas92 needs to do is stop it, which should be easy enough for someone of his/her experience. I'll lift the block so he can comment here. Deb (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No-one as far as I can tell asked Reywas92 to use a different edit summary. I personally didn't find the summary offensive at all. To whom was it offensive? Who is harassed by it? The block was trigger-happy I'm afraid. And the block was made two hours after their last edit. What's that all about? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's all explained above. You personally didn't find it offensive because it wasn't directed at you, but clearly it was directed at the people who made the edits that were deemed superfluous. GhostOfDanGurney is right in saying that it is an abuse of the script, and the instructions for the script clearly say that those who use it must take responsibility for the content. Deb (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Although not addressed specifically to a specific person by name, it is addressed to a specific person, the editor who made the block. That Reywas92 didn't name that person is a small (very small) mitigating factor, but the edit summary was still abusive. And there's the question og making mass changes with a script without a consensus to do so, which is very much a no-no. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The point remains this was a bad, punitive block. The edits were not going on, the block was made without Reywas even potentially seeing the warnings which were all added two hours after they stopped editing. Communicate first, block later. Good grief. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I do take responsibility for my content. My content appropriately removed unwarranted duplication in the text and this is an effective use of the script. Reywas92^Talk 18:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed this mess popping up on some of my watchlist articles, and condescending edit summaries aside, it seems to have been done with no consideration of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers as figures or words - i.e. larger numbers should remain numerals. fortunately the vast number of instances were smaller ones... EditorInTheRye (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought all the script was doing was removing the redundancy? MOS definitely doesn't say we need the same number twice. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the script always seems to choose the spelled-out version of the number over the numeral one, including in cases where there's a choice to be made (numbers over 9) [363] EditorInTheRye (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Well I'm sure if anyone bothered communicating with Reywas rather than just blocking them, they may well have been amenable to altering any script (once approved) to take that into account. But we'll probably never know. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit was correct. One would be wrong to say numbers over nine should choose the numeral version since MOS:NUMERAL says they "may be expressed either in numerals or in words". It is typical to use a consistent style for numbers in the same sentence or paragraph, as well as to spell out a number at the start of a sentence. I review every edit and in fact a couple of these did preserve the numeral instead of the word where I felt it was better. Reywas92^Talk 18:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That's alright then, thanks for reassuring :) I just saw all the large number ones going one way (out of the ones I found - too many to check) and feared the worst, but if you're reviewing all of them I'm not going to worry. EditorInTheRye (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

My find-and-replace actually only changes those up to twelve, and anything higher I also see I did manually. Reywas92^Talk 20:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of things going on here, so I'll try to summarise:

• I think everyone was trying to do the right thing.
• I agree with BMK that the substance of the edits themselves improve Wikipedia.
• The edit summaries are not helpful. I'm not offended by them, presumably TRM isn't either; however any random editor happening upon them any time in the future and thinking "Am I stupid? Is this typical of the Wikipedia editing environment" are not good optics.
• Reywas92 stopped editing around 08:00 UTC, and did not edit between then and the warnings and block about two hours later. In my personal opinion, a block is not necessary because there is no disruption right now to prevent.
• The warning could have been more specific eg: "Hi, the edit summaries in this batch of edits is a bit condescending; can you please tone it down a bit?"
• If Reywas92 responded with a suggestion to the above akin to the response in Arkell vs Pressdram, sure then a block is justified.
• At this juncture, I think we should wait for Reywas92 to comment on the block. Hopefully he will take the mantra that "blocks are preventative, not punitive" in the spirit intended, but if he doesn't, cut him some slack. As long as the request is something like, "I'm sorry, I over-reacted and didn't mean to cause offence to anyone", then that should resolve the issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that sensible summary. However, the block was intended to be preventative, not punitive, and has already been lifted. Bearing in mind the huge number of automated edits that Reywas has made in the past day, I was not sure that he had stopped. Since he was apparently not returning to edit in that timeframe, he hasn't been inconvenienced. Deb (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Next time try communicating before blocking. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The warning could have been more specific eg: "Hi, the edit summaries in this batch of edits is a bit condescending; can you please tone it down a bit?" I will definitely keep this in mind in the future when using the warning templates. And TRM, I think she gets it already. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Reywas deserves an apology for a block which was handed out inappropriately. But hey, some things never change. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with TRM that the edits were good (even if the edit summaries were indefensible) and the block was bad. GiantSnowman 11:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I also believe admins should not block "while [they] look at it". About the BAG comment above, I don't believe semi-automated editing like this needs approval from BAG. Just that editors are encouraged to ensure the edits have consensus, or at least are sensible, and are reviewing each change before pressing save (ie the semi-automated part). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. It's effectively a matter of good faith: if disruptive edits are ongoing, then a block is necessary to prevent ongoing disruption. But if there's been a substantial pause in editing (and the sheer number of edits up until then makes two (2) hours substanti indeed), then good faith leads one to assume that they have stopped editing, and that only a warning not to resume is required. ——Serial 11:41, 17 March

• One edit summary in the vein of Reywas's comments would be a WP:CIVIL / WP:5P4 issue earning a mild rebuke. Two hundred and sixty -ish (260) instances is a Parker misuse of AWB/JWB privileges which ought to be revoked. Cabayi (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  Don't think this is an abuse of AWB privileges at all. It it were, a few admins are also foul of the rules (including Special:Contributions/Iridescent_2 and Keith, for example). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  While I tend to agree that the issue here isn't actually related to AWB privileges per se, the edits linked had a banal, perfectly sensible edit summary so I'm not sure direct comparisons to this case are that useful. The issue isn't the substance of the edits so much as the summaries. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  Seems a simple problem to solve: editor got too excited with their edit summary, so they pick a more dull edit summary and this thread can move along. I misread exactly what Cabayi was getting at, but there's still no misuse of privileges requiring revocation here, and nothing requiring a block either. Overactive admin action/rhetoric imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's abuse/a problem if they continue to use those edit summaries only really after they have been told not to.... GiantSnowman 12:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, it was a bad (post-warning, pre-repeat) block, but it was for 24 hours and Deb lifted it after twenty (20) —imitation, BMK, imitation!— minutes, during which the blocked user seemed to have been absent, anyway. So, I don't think Deb needs to be put through the gauntlet over it. That said, Deb, maybe some more reflection is due in words rather than only in deeds (weird, usually in life, the opposite holds true). Because, "stupid" (etc.) directed at vague editors behind a, well, stupid editing practice, isn't too egregious of an insult, though the mass edit nature obviously aggravates it. All considered, this more a meh than anything. HTH! El_C 12:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That's about the size of it and, if it happens again, I will leave it to the experts to deal with. Deb (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm just happy I got to steal BMK's joke and that there's nothing he can do about it. Power disparity! El_C 13:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Hang on!! Is this about a script that can automatically write sarcastic edsums? YES PLEASE. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Deb (talk · contribs) is good people, and I've always been impressed with her admin decisions when I see them, and I don't want to gang up too much, but I wish she'd acknowledge on Reywas's talk page (and his block log, if he asks) that this block was an actual mistake. The "harm" with a short block like this is that there is now an entry in the previously clean block log of a good-faith editor who has been here 15+ years and made 55,000 edits, who did not repeat the edit after the first message was placed on their talk page, who was accused in the block log of something he didn't do. And the unblock note does not acknowledge that the block was in error. We lose editors over stuff like this.
  The edit summaries aren't optimal, and they're even less optimal if they're part of a (semi?)automated JWB run, but it kind of looks like people think he was calling someone stupid. He wasn't. He was saying we shouldn't treat the reader as stupid. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, that resonates with me, too. The block is marked as an NPA block even though it was, at worse, mild incivility, even with the aggravating mass edit dimension taken into account — actually, probably only with it taken into account (had this been a single or scarce few edits, I doubt it'd be a thing). Probably a one-second block on Deb's part to clear the air in the block log in that respect, is due. Reywas92 should not have to suffer an NPA block as a blemish on their record following them around wherever they go, and, possibly even used against them. El_C 14:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• • Floquenbeam, it's funny you should say that: We lose editors over stuff like this because that's exactly what I thought when I looked at that huge long list of sarcastic edit summaries on Reywas's edit history. And the ones we will lose are not long-standing editors who should know better than to create such summaries, but newer ones who don't understand what they've done wrong. My next thought was "This is disruptive editing and I had better put a stop to it immediately while I figure out what to do next." You may think that's wrong, or hasty, or whatever, but that's what happened. And I think it's right to reserve judgment until Reywas has come and explained why he posted those messages. Deb (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Holy crap this was an overreaction. I have questioned why some articles underestimate the intelligence of our readers by presenting unnecessary duplication and did not intend to direct "abuse" toward anyone. I've used a similar edit summary in prior one-off edits and rather than people complaining, the edits were thanked – as were several in this batch – perhaps because our readers (and editors) are NOT, in fact, stupid. I thank the users who objected to this entirely unwarranted block: I finished this group of edits, went to sleep, and was blocked without having seen this user's warning, and I kindly request User:Deb to mark it as in error. Going forward I will avoid such phrasing. Reywas92^Talk 18:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Reywas92, for being willing to meet me halfway. I acknowledge that my actions yesterday were an error of judgment. I've explained the thinking behind it. All admins make mistakes; the only way I know of to avoid doing so is never to do anything at all, and that's not my way. The suggestions that you could be penalised in future because of the existence of the block record is misleading; it's far more likely to count against me, and a few people will be queueing up to make sure it does. I'll repeat all this on your talk page for the benefit of the archives. Deb (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reywas92 did not call anyone stupid here, but merely pointed out that a certain editing style used by others treated readers as if they were stupid. It is those others who were being uncivil. We should be thanking that editor for calling that out, not blocking. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't be thanking incivility. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Where is the incivility in the edit summary, "What, are readers too stupid to understand a spelled-out number and need the numeral duplicating it?"? It is calling out others' incivility in making edits that assume that readers are stupid, not being uncivil itself. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. @Reywas92:'s summary was needlessly snarky and incendiary. He wasn't calling anything or anyone out, and his edits are the only ones mentioning the term "stupid". Why are we using edit summaries to "call out" things in the first place? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

By now it should be clear that there's a spectrum of opinion on this. On one hand you have you, the original complainant, who says it was incivility and Deb who agreed with you. On the other hand you people like me and Ritchie333 who just look at that and say "meh". So there's no clear cut issue here. And the fact that it didn't continue for a moment after the warnings should be enough for everyone here to just say "job done" except for the bad block which still needs an apology to be issued. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As someone who's complained both on-wiki and off- about the widespread acceptance on the project of snark and sarcasm, I think I'm going to come out and say here that in my estimation those edit summaries were not sarcastic in the least: they were admirably direct in stating a reason for making the change based on the purpose of the project, which mandates we write to an encyclopedia reader, not a business brochure reader or a legal document reader or a machine learning program. In many cases I am very sympathetic to people who feel hurt by having their editing criticized, but in this instance I think that taking the edit summaries personally is being too sensitive. "Any work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited ...—by anyone." The edit summaries were crafted to avoid calling the prose itself "stupid", and the mass nature of the change should demonstrate that this is a moderately common flaw in one's prose. So the issue is rather with the edits as a script run and I have to agree with Reywas92 that figures in parentheses after spelled-out numbers are a prose flaw meriting correction. (Attaching this here rather than to Pawnkingthree's endeavoring to lighten the mood below, since my point is that this was not snark or sarcasm.) Yngvadottir (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• I noticed similar sarcasm towards one of my old edits the other day. Personally I think it's not on. Calling out other editors' sloppy writing is EEng's job. P-K3 (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  A burden I did not seek, but verily God has chosen me. EEng 05:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reywas92's block log still reads "Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy" with no third entry indicating that this was mistaken. Some people are saying that the edit summaries were uncivil, some not. In my opinion, yes it was too snarky, but hey, I shouldn't be casting any stones in that regard.
  However, Reywas92's did not "personally attack" or "harass" anyone. The block log is plainly incorrect, and the unblock does not indicate this. Nevertheless, anyone reading the block log months or years later will come to the conclusion that Reywas9, did indeed personally attack or harass another user. Is this going to be fixed? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• For years, we have been trying to create a community free of personal attacks and harrasssment and, while we would generally associate "personal" with attacks made about named contributors, the object of the policy isn't only those cases where individuals can be named. The ultimate objective of the policy is to make the community at large free from harrassmet and free from anything that could as little as be perceived as an environmnet less that desirable to colaborate in. Comments such as those made by Reywas92 in the edit summaries in question are not in harmony with that more complete goal of the policy. As such, his actions did violate policy, the admin was correct in the block, and the block log should proceed to read as it would with any other case where a violation of policy took place. Mercy11 (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  I do not think having to be constantly on edge that anytime I'm less than an ideal Vulcan, I might be perceived to be attacking some hypothetical unnamed person, and be blocked without any kind of warning, is in any way to be conducive to an environment ... desirable to collaborate in. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  But this isn't every time. This is 260 or something times. If you're going to make 260 edits, you really should be thinking carefully about what you're doing i.e. apply more thought than you do with singular edits. If you don't and get in trouble because of that, you shouldn't be surprised. We can be sure these edits to introduce that style were introduced by a thinking human and not a bot. As I said in my comment below, we've all felt the urge to effectively say a change or wording is dumb or silly at times, and plenty of us have given in to it including me. But we should never forget whoever made that change is a human, and if they see you edit summary, they will see you calling their change silly. Maybe in retrospect they'll agree with you. Maybe not, especially when they're a new editor who has little experience and didn't and still doesn't understand why their change was unhelpful. If you do it occasionally over a long period of everything, we can ignore it. When you do it 260 times in quicj succession, not so much. Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with those who say it was uncivil, and risks putting off other editors. While it may not strictly be a personal attack, there is a strong risk it will be interpreted as such by the editors who inserted this weird style. An important point here which I'm not sure is clear, is that it's hard to imagine anyone with significant experience with Wikipedia using that style. That strongly suggests the editors who added them are not experienced editors and so there is greater concern than if this was an edit summary used in response to experienced editors. This edit summary strongly risks turning them off editing completely rather than teaching them what they did wrong and why.

  Note that as with I think everyone else, I agree we shouldn't be using that style in articles, it's weird and unnecessary. For this reason, the fact that some editors have thanked Reywas92 shouldn't be surprising, their edits were mostly good even if the edit summary was seriously wrong and was harmful to Wikipedia.

  A particular point, I strongly suspect that most or probably all of the people who thanked Reywas92, were not the people who added that content in the first place. If you use a personal attack e.g. 'reverting editor X who is a fucking idiot' in an edit summary and people thank you for it because editor X's change was clearly harmful, does that make your edit summary acceptable? No, not really. Maybe if editor X thanks you, it's an indication that there is some back story between the two of you which means it wasn't a personal attack, but not other editors thanking you.

  As for amending Reywas92's block log, meh I don't care. Maybe it's not entirely fair, but if you do dumb shit which harms Wikipedia, you shouldn't be surprised if you get in trouble. I'm sure many of us have left a needless offensive or snarky edit summary at times, but because Reywas92 chose to use this edit summary for bulk editing, it's not one time. Reywas92 is not an inexperienced editor and so they should know not to do dumb shit which needlessly offends their fellow editors 260 times (or whatever they did).

  I'd note we also shouldn't put aside EditorInTheRye either. If you're going to make mass changes, you should try to make sure you get it right. Reywas92 failed to do so, and while fortunately it evidently only affected a small number of articles, it is a problem. The fact that Reywas92 would have fixed this when it was pointed out to them isn't an excuse, again if you're making mass changes you really should get it right the first time. This is definitely not something blockable, but when combined with the edit summaries does equal to a clear editing problem so it's not unreasonable this made it to ANI.

  Or to put it another way, this is 99.9% on Reywas92, 0.1% on anyone else.

  Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikieditor19920 and repeated personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At Talk:Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran Wikieditor19920 has repeatedly personalized disputes and attacked me for saying the apparently outrageous statement that RFCs run for 30 days and people should calm down. After I responded to this personal attack filled screed with I will not be responding to personal attacks the editor responded with You are not here to improve the article and continued personal attacks. Wikieditor has been personalizing disputes across a range of articles, and has been repeatedly been warned across topic areas, most recently with a logged warning for ARBPIA for similar behavior. I am not sure what it will take for Wikieditor to follow the basic principle of discuss content and not editors, but I for one am sick of this editor repeatedly making this a player v player battle that I have no interest in engaging in. Across any number of disputes discussions are derailed because he continues to focus on editors and "winning". I personally dont think this editor is well suited for this website, but if something short of a ban gets the point across yippee. In the meantime though, can somebody explain to him that if he needs to write another username over and over it probably does not belong on an article talk page? nableezy - 13:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attack he didn't violated WP:NPA as he clearly talked about editing not about the person. You brought only two diffs and even if there was some real violations it clearly not "repeated". Its look to me like another attempt to remove opponent of opposite POV--Shrike (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Saying I am disingenuous and not there to improve an article is not a personal attack is talking about editing and not a person? That comment is not one that is another attempt to back up a like-minded editor? Jesus christ. nableezy - 13:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any significant personal attacks from Wikieditor19920, I do see multiple personal attacks and disrespect from Nableezy that I will present below with a proposal.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"You are not here to improve the article, you are here to stir the pot" is clearly a personal, not an editing comment. Also from the couple of days - "Selfstudier is so obviously focused on creating simple disruption" [364], "you engage in the same disruptive behavior as Nableezy and Selfstudier", "pathologically unable to accept a discussion result that doesn't go their way. This is childish tantrumming at its worst." [365], "your explicit misuse of this forum to spout your personal opinions is a waste of time and characters", [366] and these are in an area for which they were warned less than a month ago to dial it back. They were previously topic-banned from AP2 as well; I seriously wonder if the intersection between Wikieditor19920 and contentious topics simply isn't a good fit. Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite, What do you think about nableezy comments linked here do you think such comments are acceptable? --Shrike (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy is antagonizing other users at a talk page of an article they have not made a single edit to. I do not believe I have "attacked" Nableezy, but forgive me if I seem to lose patience with their approach. Someone who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones at ANI. Examples of what that "approach" consists of (most of which are directed at me, a few of which are not).

• I suggest you review common sense. Saying something happens here there and everywhere else is just dumb.
• Crickets. At least silence is better than making things up.
• There really should be a basic understanding of English to edit these pages. (In a section titled "POV editing" at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy, which violates WP:TPG.)
• The addition adds nothing besides poor writing. I will remove it.
• And as evidence of how little of your own sources you read
• This is the dumbest thing Ive seen on this page.
• Just as a demonstration of how silly this is, see if you can answer this question.
• You want to call that my fundamental assumption you can but you just look silly when you do so.
• if you say so lol. I dont quite get how one takes offense at a comment directed a third person, but its a whole new world in 2021.
• And a random person on the internet's (you) personal politics should not factor into how Wikipedia treats that, as a reliable source, at all.
• A random Wikipedia editor doesnt get to challenge actual scholarship based on their feelings.
• To be more blunt than I probably should be, in my honest opinion, any user saying no here is waving a giant WP:NOTHERE flag and should be shown the door
• before you made the unfortunate discovery of Wikipedia
• I am not obliged to watch you turn article after article to shit just because Ive already reverted you previously. When I see shit edits to articles in my watchlist I revert them.

This is a small, small sampling. As for why Nableezy has shown up to ANI this time, I think this exchange sums it up (this was in reference to me):

So this is the latest in an unfortunate campaign by Nableezy to remove an editor they disagree with from a topic area rather than work with them. I think Nableezy is a talented and passionate editor, even though I often vehemently disagree with some of their points. I wish Nableezy would acknowledge the same about editors they disagree with rather than calling their edits shit. Because the above is a major obstacle to working with them. I hope that can change so that we might collaborate and not get caught in any more argument loops. I'll accept responsibility for my part in that as well. Hopefully that will allow us to move forward. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, Black Kite has taken a select few of my edits out for critiquing. And I won't object. He's right. I shouldn't have taken the tone I did in those diffs. I've also made a sincere effort to collaborate with Nableezy and other editors I mentioned in other posts not provided. Everything is a two-way street, but comments from Nableezy like those I linked above have made that very difficult. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I was honest with you on my user talk page after you, again, accused me of following you to an article that I have been editing for a decade after you indeed turned the lead to trash. Ive refrained from such honesty on article talk pages, which are after all used to discuss articles. You continue to personalize things at article talk pages, even when I havent even opposed your view. And yes, you indeed straight up made things up at Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada, something you have not once even pretended to acknowledge. That was as close to purposely lying about content as I have seen here in some time, and you just skip on past. nableezy - 14:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I "purposely lied," "turned the lead to trash," and "straight up made things up." Thanks. Glad we're moving forward. Please just stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, 100%. Anybody who sees what is written here will see that. This comment was 100% bluster, a total fabrication. nableezy - 14:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, beyond the many personal attacks by you, telling Wikieditor19920 (and then Steamboat2020) to "Relax" three times is direspectful to the extreme and is an attack when addressing a grown person. This is text book baiting and can not be tolerated.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Telling somebody agitating over an edit being discussed in an RFC opened a week ago to relax and wait for the RFC to finish is not disrespectful to the extreme though that type of hyperbole does remind me of some past accounts, hmmm. nableezy - 14:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The "RfC" you are referring to was a WP:SNOW situation where 7-1 editors opposed maintaining an article-wide tag, and you insisted it was necessary to "wait" and the other user demanded a "formal close." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you had asked me I would have agreed that things were obviously trending in a certain direction. My point was you could wait for it to get there. I wasnt in dispute with you there and you attacked me repeatedly. For reasons I guess. nableezy - 14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

and I explained to you (nableezy) that @selfstudier wouldn't cease with endless proposals and discussions and yet you insisted on protecting him and attacking @wikieditor19920--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I didnt attack anybody there. The only thing I said, literally the only thing I said, was let the process play out. You had the numbers, the discussion was going in one way. So chill and let it happen. What is the point in attacking me there? nableezy - 15:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's incredibly exhausting to listen to how you were victimized in an exchange because other editors told you to cut the nonsense in response to your sarcastic dismissals ("relax!" "chill" etc. etc.). You have no problem regularly doling out vicious diatribes, see below, yet the moment someone says anything to you, you jump all over ANI. Oh, right, you said weeks ago that you were going to contrive a reason to come to ANI. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: telling anyone to "Relax" ([367][368][369]) is as disrespectful as one can be. This is language you use at a toddler, not grownups. And this when consensus of editors was obvious.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You have a very curious understanding of disrespect. nableezy - 14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Shared by Bustle, The Week, and Elite Daily. "Relax" is an attacking put down.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You are quoting completely out-of-context; all those pages are women who complain about men not treating them respectfully. This is a different case, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh and you wont believe the ten things that you should say instead! Click for details! This isnt a personal relationship advice page, Wikieditor is neither my boyfriend or my girlfriend, and I have no idea why I am engaging with you. nableezy - 15:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You can mock them for it, but they are pointing out to you why repeatedly telling another editor to "Relax" and dismissing their concerns can be taken the wrong way. I found it antagonistic, and others did, too. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Relax" is not something you say to adults. Trying to justify your repeated "Relax" injunctions demonstrates that Nableezy lacks the social competence to collaborate here. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It is something you say when people repeatedly jump the gun on RFCs. Such as here. You want to pretend that "relax" is a demonstration of lacking the social competence but an outright attack "You are not here to improve the article, you are here to stir the pot" is not lol? Wonder why people who edit on the same side of an ideological divide as WE here have this view. nableezy - 15:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You still aren't getting it. "Relax" is hurtful, particularly when directed at women. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you maybe pick one place to post the same comment instead of doing it over and over? That would make it a little easier to follow. nableezy - 15:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy: Repeated personal attacks, disrespect, and harassment

Nableezy's edits in this dispute from the last few days are alarming:

• [370] "rvv" = "revert vandalism". The edit reverted was not vandalism in any sense.
• [371] "before you once again decided to trash another talk page by babbling about unrelated things." Disrespect and personal attack.
• [372][373] accusing Wikieditor19920 of being incompetent, eighth-grade level.
• [374] "making such silly pronouncements" - disrespectful, personal attack.
• [375] "That you should double down on something silly?" Silly again.
• [376] Telling Wikieditor19920 to "Relax". Disrespectful and personal attack.
• [377] Telling Wikieditor19920 to "Relax", yet again.
• [378] when queried by Steamboat2020 on "Relax", tripling down with "Yes indeedy, relax".

--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

1. the user repeatedly reverted my own edit on a talk page, so yes I called it vandalism.
2. the user again derailed a discussion on an unrelated topic by bringing up what was being discussed separately in an RFC. The user has repeatedly bludgeoned discussions to death and I was frustrated by the repeated derailment
3. That is about the english being used in an article, and yes it was 8th grade level
4. Yes, silly.
5. Yes, again silly. I hadnt even made a comment about the discussion. I just asked people to go through the process. For that I was accused of all sorts of things that are in fact silly.
6. Relax is a personal attack lol?
7. Again?
8. Again?

nableezy - 14:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Telling someone to "Relax" is the epitome of disrespect, and is baiting:

• 5 Reasons Why Telling A Woman To Relax Is Pretty Much A Death Sentence, Elite Daily.
• Don't tell me to relax, The Week: "Of all of these expressions, this is my most hated....", ""Relax" is inherently self-serving, in that case. It cuts you to the quick, putting the blame on the person who is "not relaxed." "
• 6 Ways To Respond When Someone Tells You To "Calm Down", Bustle: "Never mind that telling someone to "calm down" or "relax" or that they're taking things "too personally," or that they're being "too emotional" is a surefire way to relay to them that their opinions aren't valid, something women are far more likely to experience than men. Here are some tips on how to handle this particularly grating saying."

"Relax" is not used in civil discourse.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This has to be the first time Elite Daily's relationship advice has been used as evidence at ANI. nableezy - 14:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Relax" is not something you say to adults. Trying to justify your repeated "Relax" injunctions demonstrates that Nableezy lacks the social competence to collaborate here. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, you see an editor calling somebody disingenuous and not there to improve an article as totally fine, but relax shows that I lack the social competence? Thats a very interesting sliding scale you got there. nableezy - 15:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you think calling another editors entire contributions to an area shit is just being frank, presumably you can handle when someone points out your approach of telling someone to "relax" and talking to them like an infant doesn't come across as a sincere olive branch. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I very much did not talk to you like an infant, and Im glad somebody has given you this new justification for your lashing out, but I did not in any way attack you at that talk page and your attacks were entirely unprovoked. I certainly have responded to you harshly, but this was definitely not one of those times. I was not personalizing anything there, you were. nableezy - 16:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You still aren't getting it. "Relax" is hurtful, particularly when directed at women. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase is condescending. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure? What does the advice not to tell a woman who is crying about something "relax" have anything to do with this though? And if I am reading the pop up right, WE is a man? As though this matters somehow? nableezy - 15:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

With the possible exception of a mental health professional addressing his patient, "Relax" would be extremely inappropriate "advice". This repeated failure to listen and use of this hurtful language is not collaborative, Nableezy. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but calling somebody disingenuous is totally collaborative, Silly me. But relax, thats outrageously hurtful and only to be used by a trained psychiatrist. nableezy - 16:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

So now you are telling me to "Relax"? This is out of line, a personal attack right here in the thread. You are demonstrating your inability o listen and collaborate right here. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Little bit of a hair trigger there lol, thats not what I said. I was remarking on the curious scale in which "relax" is outrageously hurtful, but outright personal attacks are just fine, totally cool. nableezy - 16:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Relax, outside of a yoga studio, basically means that you're dismissing what the other person is saying as completely irrelevant. Which, if you can't see why telling someone their point and concerns have no validity is hurtful, well not sure how we can help you there. Canterbury Tail talk 17:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the thousands of times that "relax" has been used at ANI (including by some of our most respected editors oh another one in a closing statement) were people dismissing what the other person said and that their points have no validity and was so clearly uncivil that all of those thousands of times "relax" has been used resulted in a block. Cmon now. Somebody jumped the gun, after having just jumped the gun. So I said relax and wait the RFC out. nableezy - 17:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's clear that no amount of people telling you that you were being obnoxious is going to sink in. But stop pretending this is a good-faith argument. Telling an editor who is raising a legitimate issue to relax repeatedly and dismissing their complaints is in no way a good-faith effort to strike a rapport or accomplish anything productive, especially when it's accompanied by remarks dripping with sarcasm. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the idea that saying relax to somebody who after just "jumping the gun" at one RFC and does so again is on the same order as outright personal attacks as disingenuous or not here to contribute is very much not a good faith argument. You didnt raise a legitimate issue. You were out of turn and I told you in the best way I know how to chill and let the process play out. You responded with personal attacks. And you are now making a post hoc justification for your outright personal attacks. You want to say relax was uncivil? Ok. How about the personal attacks? nableezy - 23:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Nableezy meant here. Regardless, there's agreement that Nableezy's "relax" schtick was inappropriate, and it was what I was specifically referring to as antagonistic in my above post. When I called it disingenuous and stirring the pot and asked him to stop, he opened this ANI. So I think that right there tells you how frivolous this all is. "Relax" was the least of my concerns, though, and obviously the other comments I had an issue with are now coming to light. Unfortunately, everyone pays a price with these kinds of reports. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't tell me to relax! I'm perfectly relaxed!

• I've got no opinion on what Nableezy did or said in toto but this pearl-clutching about how "relax" is a dirty word is just laughable. Citing (above) Elite Daily's thoughtful and measured piece "5 Reasons Why Telling A Woman To Relax Is Pretty Much A Death Sentence" (by Ashley Fern, Elite Daily's "Director of Branded Social Strategy") makes it even more delicious. Death sentence. Right.
  BTW, one of Ms. Fern's other pieces is "#NoFilter: Why I Will Never Censor Myself And You Should STFU About It":

When did it become a crime to speak what's on your mind? Why are we so worried about offending people? ... I'd much prefer to speak my mind, offend someone and never have to deal with his or her sensitivity again. I mean, who even has time for that? ... You need real, upfront and crazy people to keep you alive! And if people tell you otherwise, nix them -- you don't need that negativity in your life.

So nix on you language police. Got no time for you. EEng 10:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

EEng, respectfully, it's a bit more complex than that. What's being offered here is advice for an editor whose approach was irking everyone else. If that editor wants to take the "I'll say what I want and I don't care who hears it" approach you're suggesting, then maybe that editor shouldn't be the first to run to ANI at the first perceived slight. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote with any kind of care.

• the "I'll say what I want and I don't care who hears it" approach you're suggesting – I suggested no such thing. I was highlighting the bankruptcy of citing some airheaded online blogger's idiocy by pointing out that she'd directly contradicted herself in another post.
• maybe that editor shouldn't be the first to run to ANI – Like I said, I've got no opinion on what Nableezy did or said in toto. My comments were explicitly limited to calling out the hysteria over the word "relax".

EEng 07:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Propose: Nableezy topic banned from Arab-Israeli conflict

I propose Nableezy be topic banned from all pages and edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I will note that Nableezy has tried to drag WE19920 to ANI before here in what appeared to be a questionable report, and WE19920 narrowly escaped a community site ban on an unrelated matter here. Can't be bothered to dig through this currently to figure out which, but it's likely one of the two parties here are problematic in the topic area. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Then there's also Wikieditor19920's recent (March 4) bogus report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060#WP:STALK behavior by User:Nableezy. El_C 14:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Given Wikieditors history, I'm surprised the above NAC of the ANI report was allowed to happen.  // Timothy :: talk  14:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Indeed. Whilst there's clearly a protracted conflict between these two parties, I imagine an IBAN is unlikely to be helpful not only due to the overlap in editing interest, but because I don't think an interpersonal conflict is the crux of the issue here. Plus, WE19920 has had these same issues with other editors (eg Bacondrum) before. Though, at least in the diffs cited here, Nableezy ends up looking worse (at least in PAs), but neither party is really shining. So, as far as I can see, there's sustained and protracted disruption in the PIA topic area due to their conflict, but neither party is doing their best, and (presumably) both parties have something to offer to the content area, but appear unable to remedy themselves without external assistance. So what's the way forward in a case like this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

For example, in Talk:Palestinian_political_violence#ok_so_everywhere I think both parties have a point, and I see what they're both getting at but it seems they both default to ABF and arguing over trivalities (like the section header) rather than listening to the other person's points. I get the feeling WE made a better attempt to discuss content than Nableezy did, however (after immediately telling an editor their writing is poor and implying they don't get something basic, well, one cannot expect the discussion to head somewhere productive). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I admit I respond poorly when I feel that somebody is refusing to get the point and continues to ignore any argument against their position. Like I never said that the word internationally shouldnt be used, I was against a specific formulation. That was repeatedly ignored with such things as dictionary definitions of internationally being brought as though that was in dispute. So yes I was overly harsh. But its been months of IDHT across a range of pages and yes I reacted harshly and poorly. Was not my finest moment, though I was the one to make an edit that ended that specific dispute. nableezy - 15:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I must disagree, if you look at where it is now, there is a failed verification tag added by WE to a reference that was added by himself! Nor has said reference anything to with the sentence it is supposedly citing. This was done after I had supplied a separate reference in response to his complaint that the one sitting there for years was insufficient. It is hard to avoid the impression that the intention is only to provoke.Selfstudier (talk)

Please note @nableezy was defending @selfstudier when the alleged violations by @nableezy occured so any comments made here by @selfstudier should be read with that in mind.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Diff I posted this to Wikieditor's talk page a few days ago. He deleted it. Although I did not specify them, this was in relation to a number of IP area articles. This morning, when I looked in at the article being discussed above (an IP area only in a very broad sense) and Wikieditor's editing/comments, I made the decision to disengage from any further involvement there Diff, it is not worth the candle to have to deal with that sort of thing.Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please note @nableezy was defending @selfstudier when the alleged violations by @nableezy occured so any comments made here by @selfstudier should be read with that in mind.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is even a little curious when somebody's very first edits to ANI are asking for a topic ban? Nobody? nableezy - 14:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You make these repeated insinuations against editors you disagree with, like on Kenosha Forever's page yesterday. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I usually ask that when I have suspicions. Like when somebody's first edits in over six months are to ANI, their very first edits to ANI as a matter of fact. Kinda screams out sleeper sock. Then I file an SPI report. That a problem? nableezy - 15:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I am very concerned at Geshem Bracha's pattern of editing. I was editing wikipedia for a decade before I knew this place existed, I'm not even sure how it works now. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• TBAN Nableezy. In light of repeated personal attacks by Nableezy brought up above, including: "This is the dumbest thing Ive seen on this page" and "seem so confident in making such silly pronouncements". Conduct at this thread continues attacking other editors, and not listening. Telling editors to "Relax" and then repeating it over and over and then arguing at ANI that "Relax" is somehow civil demonstrates a lack of required social competence. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  Wikieditor19920 could have behaved better, but in light of the blatant baiting by Nableezy, his behaviour is excusable. "Relax" is a statement that boils the blood, to which most adults would respond harshly. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Topic ban both (see below for change 22:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)) This area is hard enough to work in and these two are only making it harder, without any doubt driving away other editors that do not want to deal witht this type of environment. I agree with PR that an iban isn't going to help.

• Wikieditor has been here too many times with different editors for this to be ignored. I'm surprised the last ANI El C mentioned above was allowed to be NAC without any action or even a warning.
• BlackKites comment about Wikieditor having a perpetual problem in controversial areas is spot on. They seem drawn to these areas, only interested in these areas, and is not a net positive in any of these areas. I seriously question if they are here to build the encyclopedia or are here for just for combat.
• The diffs of nableezy PAs/uncivil are way over the line; given Wikieditor's history I'm surprised their reaction wasn't worse. I have a strong suspicion nableezy was trying to provoke a response to return to ANI, but even if this wasn't the case their PA/uncivil comments need to be addressed. This cannot be ignored, especially in this area.
• Both editors are displaying battleground attitudes. nableezy's is more obvious, but Wikieditor's is clearly present.
• Both editors have an POV agenda and it is clearly disrupting this topic area. Again nableezy's is more obvious from the above, but it doesn't take much looking to see Wikieditor's is clearly present and just as significant and problematic.
• Both are aware is DS apply to this area. This should put any editor on their best behavior, but it doesn't seem to have helped here.

I think they have both earned a topic ban, even if this wasn't a DS area.  // Timothy :: talk  15:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

* TBAN both Wikieditor and Nableezy per TimothyBlue. Even the conduct within this ANI report is extremely antagonistic. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Oppose. While Nabreezy has not been on his best behaviour, his edits and burden of proof has always been very high. I'd recommend some time to cool off, but the conduct by the FARMED accounts here is even more appalling. Shushugah (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You "recommend some time to cool off"?! Outrageous!!! nagualdesign 18:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Tban for Wikieditor19920, this user is just skipping from one hot-button topic area to the next, leaving carnage in their wake, like they're looking for arguments. Nableezy needs to work on not being baited and losing their cool in discussions, but their contributions to the topic area (again, one that Wikieditor19920 is a latecomer) outweigh the negatives. For now. ValarianB (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not an admin, so I've no idea if this has any value, but Tban for Wikieditor19920. Looks like consistent breach of WP and POV pushing, Nableezy could have handled it better, but I don't see anything exceptionally out there in his/her responses. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  No need to be an admin. Admins enact community imposed sanctions on top of their own discretion. All that is required is adherence to Wikipedia policy and compelling arguments, which are you are providing. Shushugah (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• TBAN both Either TBAN both to stop this or no one --Shrike (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

To be totally frank, I admit Ive been an asshole for longer than should be allowed and there are certainly comments linked above that demonstrate that and if yall feel that a topic ban of a defined or indefinite length is necessary then I dont really have much of a defense to offer here. Ive been editing in this topic area for a long time, and there are definitely ebbs and flows in how jaded or irritable that can make somebody. And I should be more calm, and yes more relaxed, when editing here. But as I have said over and over, the root cause of the civility issues is always, is always, the disregard of the content policies by others. Yes, I get pissed when an editor makes things up and is able to just keep on skipping down the proverbial block to the next article. I get less civil when an editor repeatedly dismisses reliable sources as "biased" when they say things they dont like. And the prior WP:COMPETENCE ANI was my attempt to deal with that root cause. In my opinion, if you can deal with the editors who are very much waving a NOTHERE flag (and I 100% stand by that comment) while doing so with some veneer of civility the toxicity in some topic areas will melt away. nableezy - 16:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I will say personally, as someone who has proposed a site ban on WE before, I'm struggling to be able to justify supporting sanctions solely for WE (or Nableezy) in this particular dispute. I'm also struggling to justify this ANI being closed with no action, given this dispute has hit ANI too many times and is causing disruption in a fraught topic area (Israel-Palestine) and probably driving other editors away. Timothy's arguments are compelling. I guess, given all the aforementioned, the only reasonable option here is to TBAN both. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• TBAN both but it should not be left with only one ban. This area could use less toxicity, not more. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Don't TBAN either of them -- both proposals were vindictive--Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• It seems to me that there is a qualitative difference in the two cases and whatever is decided should reflect that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment I write this reluctantly. Geshem Bracha, Shrike, 11Fox11, Sir Joseph, Shushugah and perhaps even TimothyBlue are saying predictable things - editors either too deeply involved in these articles, or having no knowledge of the topic area. What follows may be read as a mechanical defense of Nableezy by another of the usual suspects. I'd far prefer it in these venues if the two people involved argued before admins without any of this external disturbance (including mine) That said

I can see where this is going to go. A huge ballast of ‘stuff’ is dumped down for editors to digest. Most of the articles and historical contexts are ignored as content disputes (and that is where, however, highly exasperating behavior like WP:Bludgeon WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT emerges, if the onlooker has a minimal grasp of sources), - too much bother to go slowly through the relevant evidence, and a Solomonic judgment will be delivered to rid the area of both editors, ex aequo. The differences are annuled. Nableezy is often curt but focused: the list given up top by Wikipediaeditor can hardly constitute a serious case for parity of unwiki behaviour. When telling an editor to ‘relax’ is spun as on the same level of what wikieditor does, this tit-for-tat impressionistic ‘balancing’ of charge sheets become ridiculous, apart from unreadable.

I misclicked a few days ago and found myself thrown into the usual website that is campaigning and recruiting editors to save wikipedia from the cabal of 'vicious Israel-haters'. I was rather annoyed when I saw Nableezy had been promoted to the second most toxic editor at my expense, now that it downclasses me to a 4th level threat. Apparently, Nableezy is as 'threatening to wikipedia as Hamas is to the peace process.' Urgent action is required because they indict him for having outed 60 ‘pro-Israeli’ sockpuppets, all with the connivance of disattentive checkusers.

This is no grounds for ignoring Nableezy's sometimes (not usual) exasperated remarks. I am not excusing those. All kinds of measures can adequately cope with desultory evidence of loose language. But the I/P area would not be minimally functional if his expertise in ridding it of chronic abuse by sockpuppets were chucked out for a few piddling intemperate asides with a notoriously bludgeoning editor.

I’ll deal with only one core piece of dispute to show the glaring difference in editing approaches. If you compare Wikieditor’s lead edit to Al Aqsa which Nableezy contests here, with what the actual section dealing with the onset of the violence states (it’s only a paragraph: read it) the distortion by WE is graphic - finding one source to crush the evidence of dozens. If you examine Nableezy’s talk page explanation (detailed, involving close source examination) and compare it with one single off the top of the head rejoinder, then you grasp why in all of the basic diffs, the clash is not dismissible as a POV difference. The working methods are totally different. At Palestinian enclaves over 60 RS were read by several editors: the talk page by contrast became a huge argufying screed where Wikieditor disclaimed any obligation to read those sources- books and scholarly articles, and harped on just one: a New York Times article as crucially important. This behavior - hairsplitting repetitive argufying without wide or close attention to the historical record - is the hallmark of Wikieditor’s hyperactive editing in that area, and is intensely annoying. Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Nishidani you state I am probably saying predictable thingss. Why is my comment predictable?  // Timothy :: talk  18:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

See your talk page.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you :) all is good.  // Timothy :: talk  20:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you two worked it out. I, however, also have more specific bone to pick with this comment. This is the second time Nishidani has insinuated that I am somehow involved with some off-wiki, Pro-Israel activist effort, which is as defamatory as it is false. Nor did I come here to "make a case" against Nableezy (I didn't come here at all, actually -- Nableezy claimed a PA when I told him that repeatedly chiding another editor to "relax" was unhelpful -- about a week earlier he also told me all my edits to the PIA area were shit).

Nishidani also includes the usual set of insults that my edits are incompetent (Nableezy uses the delightful terms trash and shit), I don't know anything about the subject area, etc. Claims I do not take personally, both because they are obviously false -- unless the multiple long-term editors who've agreed with my points at the relevant pages are equally incompetent -- and because it's something that Nishidani regularly levels against opponents in any debate. See here, where another editor confronted Nishidani for telling someone they required a "remedial course" in "elementary logic." Nishidani's intensely insulting remarks are not as pithy as Nableezy's, but no less disruptive. Nishidani also edits in tandem with Nableezy and Selfstudier across the PIA area, and has maintained the same approach for years with opposing editors as far as I can tell. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That isnt what happened, this new justification for your baseless attacks that I said relax is just that, new. nableezy - 21:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you for it. There's nothing I more I can add to what others have already said about it, which is that you were off. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, obviously. Clear and disruptive attempt to remove an ideological opponent from the area. Again. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Topic ban both of them - as per the well reasoned arguments of User:TimothyBlue Alaskan wildlife fan (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskan wildlife fan (talk • contribs)

First edit in 7 years. Like I'm kinda honored. nableezy - 21:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

some of us have long memories Alaskan wildlife fan (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

What pray tell is an editor with 25 edits, and then silent for 7 years, that I have not ever interacted with remembering? Dollars to donuts, NoCal on a cell phone ^^^^. Will put the SPI together though. Also, you cant comment on this as this account doesnt have the 500 edits necessary to discuss the ARBPIA topic area in project space. Im sure another account can be used. nableezy - 21:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"that I have not ever interacted with" - lies as usual, and as you have ben repeatedly doing: [379] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskan wildlife fan (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh snap youre right, I had you pegged before. Sorry, forgot, but I wont forget the SPI this time. Toodles, nableezy - 22:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Wikieditor (WE) just took upon themselves to edit "pr RfC" (link) ...when the RfC is still not closed(!) That an editor with over 8000 edits can do such a thing, on one of the most contested articles in one of the most contested areas on WP, does not bode well for the future. I think WE could do well with a break from the P/I area.

One thing is language, another thing is actions: for me actions speaks loader than words.

Having said that, both WE and Nableezy could improve their language. I have, however, noticed an influx of new (?) editors to the IP area lately, with similar POV as WE, all here aggressively to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (Eg. I am not at all impressed when an editor first action after passing 500 edits is to ask for a topic ban of an opponent.(link) Huldra (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hold on -- Huldra, that diff is two days old, and the issue of whether or not to wait for closure (which is not required for all RfCs, see WP:CLOSE was already resolved (there is a pending closure request that I and all parties have agreed to respect). What is the crux of your complaint there? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to cite a diff from the 14th- when diffs cited against Nableezy goes back to the 11th? And I see a request for WP:CLOSE; (and obviously: all will respect; anything else would be "wikicide") -alas I do not see a consensus for your edit (which was reverted). Frankly, I think that was a pretty disruptive edit from you, Huldra (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You're allowed to cite what you want, but you said that I "just" made the edit, as if I went to do something contested while the ANI was active. That's a bit misleading. Second, the consensus I asserted was in Part 2 of the RfC, and another editor agreed with me on it if you read the discussion. However, you're correct, I left it alone once I was reverted and the close request was opened. So was that a mistake? Clearly some thought so, but it's not one I doubled down on, and I think you presented it in a pretty prejudicial way. Especially when you act as if that is so much worse than Nableezy basically insulting me personally across half-a-dozen talk pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Lol; 2 days ago is "just" ..when you have edited for 15+ year. And yes: I actually think it is far, far more important what editors are doing on article-pages, than what they are doing on the talk-pages. It is the article -pages most people will see; the talk-pages are more for "internal consumption" for us Wikipedians. As for who is insulting who: lets say there are mixed opinions about that, and that you have not come across as an angel, either, Huldra (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC).

• Second thoughts re Nableezy: This comment [380] by Nableezy deserves a lot of credit. Its very different from their initial comments. Alaskan wildlife fan comment also tells me something about what is going on at that article.  // Timothy :: talk  21:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  What credit is that, Timothy?

  • I get pissed when an editor makes things up Again, is accusing me of "making things up"
  • I get less civil when an editor repeatedly dismisses reliable sources as "biased" when they say things they dont like again, accusing any disagreeing arguments about source bias as frivolous or POV pushing, even though source bias is a regular point of contention across PIA and RSN (he is referring to a discussion at Talk:Palestinian enclaves, and a dismissed complaint he filed at WP:ANI where he made the same arguments)
  • if you can deal with the editors who are very much waving a NOTHERE flag (and I 100% stand by that comment) while doing so with some veneer of civility the toxicity in some topic areas will melt away. Here's the kicker. He's blaming me, or anyone who disagrees with him, for years of incivility in this topic area. As long as Nableezy has no one with an opposing view to deal with, the incivility will "melt away." Got it.

  It's also funny: I acknowledge, and still acknowledge, that Nableezy is a talented and passionate editor, without qualifications. If Nableezy was willing to pay a similar amount of respect - even a fifth - the other way, we wouldn't have an issue. It's the cited behavior above I have a problem with, and that is continued in this passive aggressive, blame-shifting "apology." Accepting responsibility is a start -- something there's surely plenty of to go around -- but, again, it comes off as completely insincere when it's just followed by a series of the same insults that contributed to the tiff to begin with. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 your words have clarified things. Thank you.  // Timothy :: talk  22:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I 100% stand by making things up. This is placing a straightforward black and white untruth in to an encyclopedia article. The subject of the article is not a series of Palestinian attacks, and it is not something that happened within Israel. The comment on the talk page is likewise making things up. You said something that is flatly untrue. And instead of admitting the error and committing to not making baseless claims in the future, you just keep going on along. That does get me pissed off, though I need to learn to not let my anger get the best of me. And yes, a NOTHERE flag is very much being waved when an editor tries to say that a peer-reviewed journal article by an expert in the field is some opinionated biased source that cannot be used because they dislike its conclusions. I stand by that statement too. nableezy - 21:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Flatly ridiculous. Here is a Cambridge-published source that makes no use of the term "uprising" and describes a "terror campaign" within Israel, a term that I actually watered down. Are there sources that use uprising? Sure. But because I offered a different description from "uprising," one Nableezy didn't like, he unleashes a tirade of PAs on ANI and at the article talk page. This is where we reach an impasse. When a disagreement turns from "we disagree on content" to "you are a liar," what is the path forward? I can walk away from the PIA area entirely, which I'm sure many editors subject to Nableezy's bullying have done, or I can offer a defense of my edit. And if I, even for a moment, evince some frustration or taking some of these endless PAs personally, IMMEDIATELY Nableezy runs to ANI demand retribution. I think it's obvious what's going on here. I will gladly work with Nableezy, but I cannot work with someone who repeatedly calls me a liar and basically says I have no integrity each and ever time we're at odds over a piece of an article, even five words. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to read sources. Even now that you come up with one, you clearly haven't read it closely, if at all. This excellent paper states, among other things: 'We therefore surmise that lethal escalation is the preferred strategy for the occupying state as it is widely supported and brings the most reliable results in the out-suffering contest. . . The Intifada’s first three months were characterized by massive, civil defiance. There is no evidence that Hamas’s Al-Qassam Brigades were preparing in advance for a terror escalation. Israel’s devastating repression, however, soon discouraged protest and promoted the conflict’s militarization. Palestinians’ perception of an inordinately and indiscriminately deadly suppression of protest was critical in creating the climate that fuelled the terror campaign. . . the Israeli state applied “unlimited use of limited force” intended to impose “escalation dominance through excessive” and disproportionate lethal violence. Nada Matta, Rene Rojas The Second Intifada a Dual Strategy Arena,· European Journal of Sociology 57 (1) January 2016 pp.65-113pp.75,83-84. This is exactly the opposite of what your edit to Al Aqsa Intifada suggested. One more proof that you don't pay attention in this topic area, and don't even familiarize yourself with the few sources you cite, always for some word, or phrase, never for the conceptual framework.Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Just wow. Of course there are sources about the terror campaign, including suicide bombings, in Israel. To say that the intifada as a whole took place in Israel however is a black and white untruth. Half of the article covers Israeli military operations in the West Bank. It isn't even debatable. And one source not using the word "uprising" does not make it so when you say uprising is not found in academic sources any less of an untruth, given the hundreds that do, several of which were quoted to you. But yet you persist with the bluster. This is the root of the problem. People are allowed to make things up repeatedly and without consequence. I will try to be calmer in responding to that. But something really should happen to the people putting in black and white untrue statements in encyclopedia articles. nableezy - 22:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And it continues. The article covers violence in Israel all the way up to October 2000. But if you believe summarizing the Second Intifada as referring to a series of attacks within Israel is inaccurate, you are free to make adjustments -- such as "within Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza" -- then you can do so without making it into a personal attack. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This is me saying woosah and not responding to what I consider IDHT and bad faith editing harshly. I did that, I reverted an edit that put a black and white untruth in an article. I then explained why on the talk page. Then a user made another statement that is a black and white untruth, that the term uprising is not generally found in academic sources. I provided a number of such sources. Said user never responded. nableezy - 23:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I see another unsigned comment from Nishidani, which veers off onto a tangent entirely unrelated the point I made yet still accuses me of misusing the source. The question was how to define the Second Intifada, not where blame ultimately lies for the violence -- and the source explicitly ties a terror campaign into the Second Intifada. That was the specific proposition I used the source for, which is in no way contradicted by what you just quoted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You mentioned me, cited a source, and I have it, reread it, and noted it stated the very opposite of what you made the said article's lead to say. This is another case of your behavioural problem here. Not reading sources, and then argufying with those who do. Let's not drown this thread in more futile exchanges. There's more than enough here for an assessment.Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I made an edit to the short description of the page to describe "a series of attacks in Israel," and the section you quoted describes the response to those attacks as disproportionate. Both can be true, and it does not "state the opposite" of that. But don't let me take away from your lobbying efforts on Nableezy's behalf. These pile-ons are reminiscent of exactly the kind of behavior that is a constant in the PIA area wherever Nishidani and Nableezy are involved, and I am certainly not the only one on the receiving end of it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Change to oppose topic ban for nableezy. I think they know they got too heated, said things they should have phrased differently and will take this as a lesson learned and work to keep things more civil in the future. Wikieditor19920's comments have clarified things for me. I believe given all of Wikieditor19920 history and now this, they have earned a topic ban if not a site ban.  // Timothy :: talk  22:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  Right, when the user says they 100% stand by their insults and will stop once the opposing editor is dealt with, I guess that's all one needs to say to show it's behind them. This is a shocking 180 from The diffs of nableezy PAs/uncivil are way over the line; given Wikieditor's history I'm surprised their reaction wasn't worse. I have a strong suspicion nableezy was trying to provoke a response to return to ANI, but even if this wasn't the case their PA/uncivil comments need to be addressed. This cannot be ignored, especially in this area., which was on point, and acknowledged, even from your vantage point, that I was pretty measured in response to what are blatant PAs. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reply I'm not excusing Nableezy, everything I said is true. But they convinced me that they recognize their mistakes and will try to do better and be more constructive and collaborative. If they don't we'll be back here. You have not even started to convince you understand your role in this problem. You're both just as guilty for this mess, the difference is in how I think you both will proceed from here.  // Timothy :: talk  23:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know on what planet an editor literally stating they would do nothing differently and reaffirming the same insults they made initially is an apology. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Some important context here: Nableezy literally said weeks ago that they would find a reason to come to ANI, and they've done exactly that. This was a pre-planned charade, based on me telling him at a talk page that telling other editors to "chill" came off as disingenuous pot-stirring.

Second, Timothy Blue's sudden turn-around, where a laughably belligerent "apology" is painted as a humble bending of the knee, was precipitated by pretty obvious lobbying by Nishidani to go easy on Nableezy (and an assurance that he would), which basically consisted of rehashing accusations about what a horrible editor I am, etc. etc., in a forum where I can't respond. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I strongly endorse the proposed Tban for Nableezy. He has a history of years of provoking editors with sneers, denigrating comments, and other unconstructive and antagonizing behavior. I have repeatedly pointed this out at WP:AE, which has miserably failed in its purpose to stop his behavior, and I am happy the community is at last seeing the necessity of stopping him once and for all. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That vote is a violation of the users topic ban. nableezy - 00:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Would you comment on whether Debresser's !vote and comment above is a violation of the ARBPIA topic ban you imposed on them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

If it is a violation of a topic ban I hope that Debresser will be given a chance to simply retract the vote and move on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a clear violation, Debresser was given a chance to self-revert, and didn't. I have blocked Debresser. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Where was Debresser given a chance to self-revert? Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, the request was made on Debresser's talk page four minutes after their violation and 41 minutes before I blocked Debresser. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: policy doesn't require an admin to give an editor a chance to self-revert prior to blocking for an obvious tban violation, but waiting 35 minutes (request at 00:09, block at 00:46) is not the same thing as giving an editor a chance to self-revert. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, I guess the lesson is that editors subject to topic bans should not violate their bans and then go silent, ignoring requests to revert that come minutes later. I stand by my block, but would support a shorter term if I see genuine contrition from Debresser. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I quibble not with the block or the length, but with Debresser was given a chance to self-revert, and didn't, which doesn't appear to be an accurate statement, even if the block is good :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I dunno, I think you jumped the gun a little hot and heavy there for a first violation of a topic ban with no input from the subject. Next time I you need to take a look at the whole situation a little better. PackMecEng (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, PackMecEng, but I disagree. I was not "hot and heavy" . I am as cool as a cucumber when I block for obvious topic ban violations, and the length was lenient rather than escalatory because I think Debresser is a net positive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Two weeks for a first offense is lenient? Huh, I'm not sure you know what that word means but what every you say! Also I think you are misunderstanding what hot and heavy means in this context. It means reckless without understanding the situation. Not being upset or not cool about it. Sorry for the confusion. PackMecEng (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I also think admins should avoid blocking editors for participating in a discussion in which the admin has !voted the opposite way of the editor. Even if it was a clear tban violation, the optics. Block or !vote but not both in the same discussion. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how expressing an opinion about a proposed sanction against a completely different editor prevents me from taking administrative action against another editor who committed an obvious topic ban violation in the same conversation. Please explain that to me, Levivich. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

OK I'll try to explain it. D supports a tban of N at 00:05. Four minutes later, at 00:09, N asks D to self-revert because the !vote is itself a violation of D's tban. Nine whole minutes later, at 00:18, N starts an AE threat against D. At 00:30, admin C opposes the tban of N. 16 minutes later, at 00:46, C blocks D for two weeks, and then says that D was given a chance to self revert and didn't. Given the speed of these events, one might draw the conclusion that the reason C blocked D was not because they were given a chance to self revert and didn't. This was a hasty block, and I really hope in the future you post a UTP message, "I will block you unless you self revert", and then don't block unless they continue editing without self-reverting. Because if the editor self-reverts, then a block is not necessary to prevent disruption. ::::::::::::::Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, you're missing the main event down below ↓↓↓ This could be developing into an ANI Hall of Fame thread.  // Timothy :: talk  06:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah ... he may have logged off before Nableezy pointed out the violation on his talk page, as he hasn't edited since. On the other hand, of course, obvious topic ban violation is obvious, and Debresser would have known it was as well. Black Kite (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The editor also made no other contributions in that time. Expecting editors to hang around Wikipedia refreshing the homepage waiting for an alert and revert within 45 minutes of receiving is not giving “a chance to self revert”... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: It was four minutes; not 45. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean between the second diff and the ban. There's no guarantee the editor saw the UTP message at all if they went away. Also agree with Levivich on the optics. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban of Nableezy. In order to work toward the neutral point of view in the Israel-Palestine conflict area, we need highly experienced editors with deep familiarity with the best quality academic sources, and we need such editors for both (or all) sides of the conflict. We need such editors who are thoroughly conversant with our policies and guidelines, and who are willing to collaborate with other editors who hold a different point of view to establish consensus and improve neutrality and high quality encyclopedic coverage of controversial topics. I am convinced that Nableezy is precisely this type of editor. I encourage Nableezy to take to heart the kernels of legitimate criticism, but cannot support formal sanctions at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose based on Nableezy's self-reflections above and his long term track record of collaboration with editors with whom he disagrees. It bothers me that a number of otherwise "sleeping" editors appear to have awoken for this ANI discussion, such as User:Geshem Bracha who opened this proposal against Nableezy (The account has just over 550 edits, of which almost all were made between Jan and Sept 2020, stopping shortly after achieving extended confirmed status. Then after a six month hiatus the user appears out of the blue at this ANI with a series of comments.[381]), as well as a couple of other editors. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban on Nableezy. The A-I conflict is constantly attacked by both socks and pov editors. Nableezy is a neutral editor and a sock hunter that counteracts this. I would also like to point out that a large part of the editors above that support a topic ban an Nableezy are infact on the "other side". They want to get rid of Nableezy so they can edit Wikipedia according to the views of one single country. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• TBAN Nableezy. Nableezy hounded Wikieditor19920 to 10 articles in the past month, and then engaged in a pattern of personal attacks and baiting. Nableezy then sort of apologized above ("I admit Ive been an asshole...", only to retract this hours later: "I know there are times I can come off as an asshole, I know there are times that I am being an asshole, and I can and will make an effort to deal with that. This was not one of those times.". Wikieditor19920 could have responded in a calmer fashion to this repeated baiting and attacks, but his behavior is no where close to Nableezy's.--Hippeus (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Au contraire. As best I can tell, Nableezy edited 9 of those 10 pages earlier than Wikieditor19920 did and in the one exception Nableezy's sole action was to add a reasonable tag. So your accusation of hounding is not supported by the evidence you provided. Zero^talk 08:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban for Nableezy; the diffs above just don't come close to supporting it. Asking for a topic ban because a user asked someone else to "relax" and called something "silly" is absurd. Don't get me wrong, it's not ideal conduct (something Nableezy seems to recognize), but is far, far below the standard necessary to ban someone from an entire topic area. --Aquillion (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  To pretend like the worst thing said was "relax" is mildly disingenuous. Anyway, Nableezy has a lot of friends evidently, so I'd oppose a TBAN for WE all the same for fairness, since (at least in the discussions I reviewed across multiple ANI reports) Nableezy was the first to turn content into conduct discussions most of the time. Which makes a one-sided TBAN quite problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  Absolutely no. Nableezy's made it know in the past that he dislikes fellow editors (regarded broadly as people who don't get into hotcollar disputes) chiming in when he is defending himself on these administrative pages. He's warned me more than once to fuck off, preemptively, just in case I might be tempted. I think most serious editors concur. It only gives the impression of precisely what you claim, obviously. I only stepped in when I noted a sudden turn up of several editors I'd never seen weighing in (which to me sounded like responses to an email alert). Your summing up of the rest is unrecognizable as a fair review of events over the past several months. But this is not the place to discuss that.Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't imply that Nableezy is recruiting editors to participate, or even supports the practice. But comments such as Cullen strongly resemble Wikipedia:Unblockables#Why do they get unblocked every time? #4. Other comments here also resemble #1, #3, and #4. There's also a distinct appearance that many editors supporting or opposing are (a) active in the PIA topic area and (b) either hold Nableezy's POV (hence oppose), or hold the opposite (hence support), which makes many of the comments appear like an attempt to remove/keep an ideological opponent/supporter rather than seriously assessing any of the conduct issues presented here.

  There's a lot of conversation in a lot of threads on a lot of pages. I'm not claiming to have read even half - way too many walls of text. But over the past month-ish I've stumbled across a few, and that was my general take from them. Both parties have managed to keep this up and appear to be oblivious to the notion that (possibly) community patience on their continued runs at ANI will wear out eventually. Maybe the end result of this ANI will be to draw a line under it all, and the next time a filing happens the party who first decided to start defaulting to ABF will be frowned upon. Though, reading this section, I don't hold strong hopes. Still, stuff exactly like this is why people not already involved don't want to edit Israel-Palestine articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You know good working relationships do or have existed there. I was once permabanned (8 reverts in 45 days). I thought this outrageous, but didn't complain or appeal (In an appeal one was supposed to accept one's behavior had been correctly assessed, and apologize). A year down the track. Two editors, Nableezy yes, and an Israeli-based contributor, User:Ravpapa got together - I don't know who started it - and made an appeal for my reentry, and I was accepted back, without emailing or lifting a finger. There are editors here who disagree strongly with my general outlook, whose IP work is generally so good I don't even care to check when one of the pages they edit happens to be on my watchlist. I trust them. Why? WP:CIR. They (a) really read thoroughly good sources.)b) They are not your standard lead tweakers and reverters. (c) discussing differences doesn't end up as an agony column. One has as little close knowledge of policy niceties (one of Nableezy's specialties) as I do. Like me they edit commonsensically. Deep differences no doubt remain, but don't disturb a very collaborative working atmosphere. Many editors don't edit there, not because of some 'toxic' atmosphere, bur, I think, because in such a discursively contested set of narratives, you really have to roll up your sleeves and read widely and deeply, and most of what you read is not going to go easily into articles. I find the history absorbing, and the reading rewarding regardless of what may prove to be important for articles. If one comes to this place only to protect an image, or deny a reality even many on both sides admit to be very painful, rather than cut your teeth on Israeli and diaspora scholarship and high quality reportage, then every single word will become a minefield. Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

One final point. I've reread the whole section. It started out with a brief complaint by Nableezy, and 90% of the discussion, pro or con, seems to be focused on the plaintiff. The original issue has been buried by counterclaims that have attracted far more attention. Go figure.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose topic ban on Nableezy (based on preceding comments from other editors and Nableezy's self-reflection) - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose both - Nice to see everyone here again. Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  During the "Should the lead of Israel define it unequivocally as a democracy, twice, and with no qualifications or caveats?" RFC at Talk:Israel (which came back "yes"), "no" !voters argued "no" because Israel was an apartheid state. Since that RFC was launched, there has been a noticable effort to have Wikipedia say Israel is an apartheid state at other articles, such as West Bank bantustans (created a few days after the RFC was launched) and Israel and the apartheid analogy. POV pushing is the core problem; everything else is a symptom. This isn't going to get fixed at ANI or AE; it'll take a full PIA5 arbcom case, like the Kurds case, to lay out all the diffs, filter out the incivility, brigading, and bullshit, and show patterns in content editing. Nableezy and Wikieditor have our attention at ANI but they aren't the two most disruptive editors in this story; tbanning them would be focusing on the symptoms instead of the underlying cause. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• TBAN Nableezy. Per diffs provided from Hippeus and Wikieditor19920. This editor certainly has a long history of unsanctioned battleground behavior in this particular field and this is at the point where a 6-month tban is warranted. ErinRC (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• TBAN both or just Nableezy. I don’t see their battleground behavior ending anytime soon without either a big carrot or a big stick and the wikishop is all out of carrots. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I am trying to act as a neutral mediator at Talk:Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran. I hope this helps, but see my comments below Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More battlegrounding about my experience so far. I don't think this will be resolved here, if my neutral mediation attempts fail, I think this will need to go to arbcom for one or more topic bans.  // Timothy :: talk  16:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Can someone close this farce. A complaint - we are allowed to register them: they are not evidence for indictable misbehavior- was made against wikieditor by Nableezy. That has been swamped by a massive focus on Nableezy, even to the point of falsifying evidence of hounding, and arguing preposterously that to tell a fellow editor to 'relax' is demeaning. Now Horse-eye is miffed because Nableezy asks him to answer a question he dodges at RSN, only to come here and call for the latter's Tban. What is now emerging is that the two editors who have exhaustively examined multiple sources or focused on lack of policy compliance are being blamed for their scrupulousness, as if pertinacity in pursuit of precision were a violation of wikietiquette. So, either shut this down, or, the hard thing, draw some lesson that also addresses the plaintiff's quite legitimate complaint.Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional evidence

Here are my comments that led Nableezy to file this report:

Nableezy, again, you must be joking. Selfstudier restored a tag four times depsite a 7-1 RfC against them doing so and over the objections of two editors, and without specifying any issue to actually validate the tag, and yet your only complaint is that "process be followed." You are not here to improve the article, you are here to stir the pot, and perhaps you should do so elsewhere. Steamboat2020's frustration is completely valid and something I share. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

For good measure, let's continue to review the PAs Nableezy regularly makes at other editors. Many of these are not directed at me, shockingly.

• Tell me again how you arent editing with a POV slant that disregards the sources. Just havent had a good fiction book to read in a while.
• I see somebody thinks Proponents of the analogy say that "a system of control" exists in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, ..., resemble some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid is proper writing. No genius, if one were to include the word "that" prior to resemble it would be proper grammar, but without that it is not an actual sentence. Emphasis added. By the way, dropping a sarcastic "genius" is basically a roundabout way of saying you're a fucking idiot which is obvious to anyone.
• As with Peteet, I see no need to continue to humor you. WP:IDHT is not a winning argument and thats the only one you got. And stop saying we lol, its just you.
• You finding it unclear does not make it unclear, and I find it perfectly clear. I already said what it contributes, it shows where Jabel Mukaber is in relation to the Green Line. That is on the Palestine side of that line. It's helpful for readers, and editors (cough cough), who dont realize that.
• You dont actually get to decide what reality is, we use sources for that.
• Thats cool that youve learned the mimicking act, maybe mimic me and read some sources.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I should not have said genius on the talk page. In my defense, I made a revert saying something was poor grammar. You blanket reverted my change, claiming that the grammar was correct when it very much was not. You have yet to justify that revert either. I have no idea why you are citing any of the other diffs. nableezy - 00:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, you should not put words in another editor's mouth. It seriously detracts from whatever strength your argument might otherwise have. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not putting words in his mouth, these are the diffs. I am explaining how it comes off. If I said to you, "Hey, Cullen, you double parked over the line, genius" or "Hey, Cullen, your grammar is terrible, genius," or if you said to me, "Hey, Wikieditor, don't put words in people's mouth, genius" Is it a compliment in any of those instances? Or is it a put down? Come on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Nah to be fair he's right, that was uncivil. I shouldnt have let that come out. I apologize for saying "genius" like that. nableezy - 00:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

^^^^ Awesome. I think that one was directed at me, so I accept and say no problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I asked at the beginning of this clusterfuck of a request is that somebody remind you not to comment on editors on article talk pages. I wasnt even looking for a ban here. Id just appreciate you not mentioning user names where it serves no purpose. Saying I am being disingenuous when all I am literally doing is asking people to let the process play out (and look it already played out, wow) and then upping the ante by saying I am not there to contribute served no purpose at all. I know there are times I can come off as an asshole, I know there are times that I am being an asshole, and I can and will make an effort to deal with that. This was not one of those times. You made this personal out of nothing. And I am just asking that somebody remind you that article talk pages are for discussing the article, not the editors. nableezy - 00:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree and think we are getting somewhere. Sometimes I start a comment saying "Nableezy," or "Selfstudier," it's not meant to be an overly personal thing. I'm just indicating who I'm addressing. In that case I was addressing something you were doing that was a bit irksome. But maybe I should've done that differently. Probably the user talk page is the right place for that. Again, no one's perfect and I'm not asking you to be -- or claiming I am. I think I said earlier this is a two-way street. I just think the temperature sometimes should be brought down, which is tough when you have passionate/assertive editors on both sides. But I'll do what I can to improve on that too. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I am glad to see that the conversation here has been at least partially constructive (unlike the topic ban request, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed the "many trivial edits to get to autoconfirmed status" nature of that editor's contributions history), with both editors concerned admitting faults, and I believe that we are in a situation where we need nothing more than a strong reminder to everyone on that page (and others in that topic area) to simply "comment on the edits, not the editor". Black Kite (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I see Nableezy admitting they need to do better, I'm seeing Wikieditor19920 doubling down. Still strongly support a topic ban for Wikieditor19920.  // Timothy :: talk  01:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Nableezy, you cannot defend your PAs, you know they are unacceptable, you've said you know this, repeat this if you feel you need to without qualifying it, and then make sure you follow through. Other than that I would stop commenting before you dig yourself a another hole.  // Timothy :: talk  01:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel like perhaps you are not reading what I'm saying. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm reading it. I think it demonstrates a battleground mentality, no self reflection on how you are contributing to the problem, and total lack of willingness to LISTEN. I think you will go right back to editing in this way which will perpetuate the problem, where I think Nableezy may make an effort to change (if they don't they will end up back here). That's why I think you need a topic ban and Nableezy should get another chance. As I stated before: you convinced me of this, not Nableezy. You are your own worst enemy here.  // Timothy :: talk  05:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hounding by Nableezy

Beyond the obvious baiting and personal attacks by Nableezy, evidence shows that Nableezy has been hounding Wikieditor19920. Looking at their mainspace interactions from February, Nableezy showed up at 10 articles right after (minutes-hours) Wikieditor19920 edited them. Wikieditor19920 didn't follow Nableezy to any article. All of the blue in the interaction report is on Nableezy's side. The interaction timeline from the same period shows the same, with Nableezy showing up to snipe at Wikieditor19920.--Hippeus (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

One thing is certain, there will be more univolved eyes watching these pages for battleground and PAs.  // Timothy :: talk  04:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

When I raised this at ANI after the first three pages, I was basically laughed off the forum. The report was also called bogus here. Thanks for recognizing I wasn't just making it up. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Do either of you understand how watchlists work? Wikieditor19920, you were asked this before with your 2-article bogus hounding report I linked to above and seemed to have understood. But I guess not...? I seem to recall, for example, about decade-ish ago, a newish editor accused me of hounding them after I reverted changes they made to a number of country articles. But how do you explain to someone that you've already had every country article on your watchlist beyond just saying you've already had every country article on your watchlist? No, it is not a conundrum — just a case of WP:IDHT. Anyway, methinks you ought to bolster your "supporters" more diligently. El_C 05:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

This is almost getting to the point where people are simply going to post anything to get their ideological opponents banned. I suggest we start thinking about boomerangs for editors who knowingly do this in the middle of contentious discussions - they are fraught enough without yet more fellow travellers wandering along and posting accustions which actually reflect worse on them than they do on the poerson they're accusing. Black Kite (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That is incredibly misleading. As explained ten days ago when Wikieditor19920 last claimed stalking, Nableezy has these articles watchlisted and will obviously notice edits. For example, the first article reported in the above "evidence shows" link is Israeli West Bank barrier. Wikieditor19920's first edit to that article was on 29 December 2018 and their next edit was on 4 March 2021. Nableezy edited the article twelve times from May 2015 to November 2018, then three more times in 2020, and once on 5 March 2021. Calling that hounding is wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, Nableezy was the earlier editor for 9 of the 10 pages in Hippeus' list. All long-term active editors in the I/P area will have most of these articles in their watchlists. For example I have 9 of the 10 in my watchlist and I also would have edited many of them recently if I had more free time. The case for hounding is nonexistent. Zero^talk 08:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, obviously I am following somebody to a page I edited 11 years ago. Obviously. The only hounding that has ever occurred has been the other way around, at Israeli permit regime (see here). nableezy - 12:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no technical definition of hounding that has to do with any particular number of pages. The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. There are plenty of editors I encounter across the same articles all the time. It's the perception that, at ten consecutive articles, Nableezy persistently shows up to call my edits shit and attack me on the talk page. If that factor were not present, there would be no problem. It has nothing to do with "ideological opponents" or me recruiting supporters. WP:HOUNDING Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That is wee bit dishonest. Ive called your edits shit in exactly one place, my own user talk page, after you, again, made a completely bogus accusation of hounding. And just like the perception the election was stolen is entirely specious and worth 0 attention, so is your perception that I am following you to places I was at before you. But thank you for the most recent example of WP:IDHT. nableezy - 16:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The diffs above and interaction logs speak for themselves. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and as has been repeatedly explained to you they dont show hounding. They show I've been at all these articles for years before you showed up. But thanks again for the continued WP:IDHT. nableezy - 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not hounding, or at least it's not what the community would call "hounding". I've made this argument in other contexts before, and seen others make it, and every time, the "I-have-a-large-watchlist defense" wins out. It goes like this: Editor 1 makes a bunch of changes across various articles in a topic area, Editor 2 reverts them all, Editor 1 says "you're following me from article to article", Editor 2 says, "no, these are all on my watchlist". The point is that Editor 2 didn't use Editor 1's contribs list to find the articles; rather, Editor 2 used their own watchlist. In other words, Editor 2 didn't revert the edits because Editor 1 made them; Editor 2 would have reverted the edits no matter who made them. This is still problematic, but it's not hounding; it's ownership. Unless the edits are all bad, in which case we call it "patrolling". Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The edits were indeed all bad. nableezy - 16:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, I'm not sure the label really matters here, but you raise a good point about ownership. To be frank, it's behavior that anyone would take offense to. The PIA area should be large enough that I can edit without having Nableezy show up within hours or even minutes to revert me and attack my edits.

As for this ridiculous WP:CIR accusation, I'm happy for anyone to provide such an example. In another discussion, an admin suggested that a claim made without diffs or evidence can be construed as an WP:ASPERSION, and I agree with that assessment. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You have been making a series of changes to the leads of core articles in the topic area. Honestly some of those changes should have resulted in topic bans they were so blatantly tendentious. You dont get to claim some sort of immunity from your edits being challenged just because Ive found them to be poor and challenged them elsewhere. nableezy - 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

More blanket, false accusations without a shred of evidence provided. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Plainly tendentious edit that should have resulted in a ban. Plainly tendentious edit that should have resulted in a ban. Both put black and white false statements in to an encyclopedia article. That should result in a ban. There ya go, evidence. nableezy - 07:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. We discussed this above, so I don't know why you're bringing up these diffs again. I don't know if this is serious, but your judgment about what warrants a "ban" is askew. This has been a tremendous and unfortunate waste of time for all involved. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculous is putting black and white falsehoods in to encyclopedia articles. Yes, those are plainly tendentious edits. They are representative of many of your edits to the leads of these articles. Wide ranging changes that were both plainly factually wrong and had a very obvious POV slant to them. I should have just gone to AE with those edits instead, cus yeah this has been a waste of time. nableezy - 07:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The above comment about putting black and white falsehoods is a personal attack.  // Timothy :: talk  08:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it's a black and white fact. There is no personal attack in stating the fact that this edit inserted a false statement in to the lead of an encyclopedia article. That is a provable fact. People really should care more about turning our articles in to propaganda more than somebody said relax ooooohhhh. nableezy - 13:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, please stop using the idiom "black and white" so much — you're making my ctrl.f cry. Anyway, while discussing content probably goes beyond the scope of this ANI, I do note that the Hebrew Wikipedia also uses the word "uprising" — violent uprising, to be precise. El_C 13:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Pity they failed to specify what was violent in both parties (neutrality). Wikieditor mentioned a source in favour of his view of the Intifada. That source states the serious violence of that Intifada was initiated by Israel. It has this interesting note to their contention:'Military General Amos Malka, then head of Israeli intelligence, confirmed that roughly one million bullets were fired in the first days of the Intifada. The tactic was referred to as “a bullet for every child.”' (That was all against crowds demonstrating, before the suicide attacks began). Nada Matta, René Rojas The Second Intifada ; A Dual Strategy Arena European Journal of Sociology April 2016 pp.65-113 p.83 n.13. Rather black, no whitewashing.Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, fine, a blood red untruth. But the falsehood is in claiming that the intifada was either a series of violent attacks (that was part of it but not the entire thing) or, more blatantly false, that it took place within Israel. Thats just a straight up untrue statement that was put in to the first sentence of an encyclopedia article, unrepentantly at that. nableezy - 14:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The PIA area should be large enough that I can edit without having Nableezy show up within hours or even minutes to revert me and attack my edits. It's not like you're editing an article on an obscure Middle Eastern food. Israeli settlement and Israel and the apartheid analogy are key pages, with 349 and 489 page watchers respectively. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I must say I am amused by this whole section. I normally add info on the history of various Palestinian villages and towns, typically articles with 2-20 "watchers". Now, I have lost count over the many, many time pro-Israeli editors have turned up, out of the blue, to edit a, say West Bank-village article just after I have edited. And yes: I know many people follow my every edit: not all of them friendly. (Partly because I, like Nableezy, have been targeted by off-wiki pro-Israeli attack&outing-sites (Apparently you will "help Israel" if you publish my "real" name. I am deeply honoured!)

How do I know people are "following" me? Since I mostly edit articles with few "page-views", it is very easy to see the "spike" in views just after I have edited an article. Take one article I added info to yesterday, Alfei Menashe; it has an average of 11 page-view pr day; yesterday it had 37. (And no: those "views" were definitely not all by me, and the article has not many "watchers")

And to think that anyone can rewrite key pages in the IP area ("with 349 and 489 page watchers"), whiteout being challenged is......rich. WP:BOLD simply is not a policy to follow, iff you want to "survive" in the IP area. (Actually, I just read WP:BOLD: it says "On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes." That part really should have be written in red.) Huldra (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a distinction here, H, that is problematical. If we have to retain this (devastatingly misleading and fundamentally stupid) simplification of an antagonistic dyad of IP editors being 'pro I' or 'pro-P', the least one could do is write 'pro-Israel'/'pro-Palestine'. 'Pro-Israeli' etc., highlights people. The issue is not people but practices. One could devise neologisms like philo-Israel/philo-Palestine on the example of philosemitic, an acceptable term which I don't however personally like (any more than Japanophile etc.) Actually, there is a natural divide between editors whose main focus is Israel or Palestine, and then a subset consisting of editors who want to vindicate the cause of one of the two at the expense of the other - those in this set are characteristically editwarriors. The existence of a preference of interest doesn't exclude the other, as our customary language above suggests. To strive to get an adequate representation of either Israeli or Palestinian realities doesn't ipso facto demean the other party. To set the record straight on Palestinian suicide attacks does not mean one is 'pro-Israel' or anti-Palestinian anymore than setting down the record of the documented realities of the occupation translates into a hostility to the state of Israel. At least in my book. And please note, 90% of the best reportage on these painful realities comes from Israeli scholars or their diaspora colleagues and Israeli newspapers. One index of the editwarrior is someone who refuses to familiarize themselves with that scholarship, preferring rather to scour Western newspapers as the most important source. There is a far greater awareness in Israel of these things than one could ever glean from foreign reportage. And therefore 'pro-Israel'/'pro-Israeli' sounds parlously misleading to me. Nishidani (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, as always: you are far more nuanced than me. "Pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian" is short-hand, of course, and I have no problems with the fact that there are excellent eh, "pro-Israel" editors, and sources. (Few here have used Benny Morris or Moshe Sharon more than me). But I am not sure I agree that 90% of the best sources come from Israel, or the diaspora. Over 50% I would agree, but 90% sounds ..too high. (And I suggest we take any further discussion about this on your or mine talk-page), Huldra (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that when you edit a page, it will then show up on those who watch it, so of course there will be increased page views. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis by El_C

If I may be extra-blunt, by putting everything on the table: Wikieditor19920 is engaging in personalizing content disputes (unwittingly or otherwise), being overly bold with obviously contested edits to key ARBPIA pages, and above all else, suffers from WP:CIR problems that are often so basic, it's truly puzzling an editor with 10K edits would falter over. Then we have Nableezy, one of the most active ARBPIA editors but also one of the least, erm, friendly (markedly and consistently so, over the course of years). Naturally, not a good mix when the two of them collide... The difference here is that Nableezy has shown some self-reflection in this discussion. Wikieditor19920, not so much (unfortunately, opting for more IDHT). //Stampula has spoken! El_C 13:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with any of that. On the basis that this is creating more heat than light though, I would suggest that since there clearly isn't any consensus to sanction anyone at this point, that this complete mess is closed with a warning to both main parties to dial it back quite a bit before we do start handing the topic bans out. We can look at User:Geshem Bracha's interesting edit-history and User:Hippeus's motivation for posting misleading (if not simply false) accusations at our leisure. Black Kite (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite, I or any other uninvolved admin don't need consensus to take action, this is an WP:ACDS matter. Again, Nableezy seems to be ready to dial it back, but Wikieditor19920 keeps IDHT'ing it away even as I write this, which is not dialing it down. And this after I have already warned them on Feb. 19 to do so, writing, in part: I'm letting you know that I'm logging a warning to you about dialing it down considerably in any and all ARBPIA matters. They have faltered on multiple occasions since. Mind you, I don't think Nableezy's behaviour has been glowing, for a long time, up to and including quite recently. Still, this whole notion of a false equivalency, to satisfy both camps or for whatever reason, that does not fly with me, and if it isn't genuinely even-handed, it just becomes an imitation of fairness. Not to mention effectively cutting down on the constant disruption and timesinking. Patience has been quite strained, I'll say that much, and hope perhaps that, this one final time, it will actually resonate. But I don't have high hopes, I'm sorry to say. Pings added for emphasis. El_C 18:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• El_C Yeah, I know, and I think I'm just trying to head off the inevitable in these areas sometimes. I have no problem at all with dropping TBANs on those who merely poke their noses into ARBPIA (or ARBAP, or ARBIPA) just to cause trouble (like the two I've mentioned above), but I have a longer leash when it comes to those who I know are capable of behaving properly. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite, seeing as it was you who had originally nudged me to look into this back in Feb. 19 (diff), sorta feels like we're back full circle. El_C 20:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• I guess what I'm getting at is: only I may insult Nishidani! Don't steal my thing!! El_C 21:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I do think having more univolved editors willing to help find consensus and reach compromise in discussions would help tremendoously. I've added a lot of these pages to my watchlist and will try to help reach compromises and consensus and keep things from getting personal. I've spent a good deal of time today looking at this area, I see that Nableezy often gets ganged up on unfairly and as a result they have a bit of a seige mentality, that is hurtiing their ability to collaborate. Both the sides of this need help break this pattern. I hope others have time to help as well. I think Wikieditor has repeatedly shown they are not will to work with anyone that does not agree with their POV and think if they are allowed to continue to be a ringleader bringing something approaching civility to this area will be much more difficult.  // Timothy :: talk  02:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  I welcome and encourage TimothyBlue to spend more time in the PIA area and I will gladly edit alongside them. Whatever they perceive my "POV" to be, I'm sure we can collaborate and I think they'll learn a lot more about the dynamics present in these articles. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

More battlegrounding

I've been looking at this area today trying to see if I can help reach compromise and consensus. I started off with what I thought would be a very easy compromise that would lead to an uncontestested removal of content at Talk:Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran#Morocco. I was in basic agreement with Nableezy on the issue, but felt that the small compromise of giving more time for the others to find sources before removing content would be appropriate and lead to a conclusion no one could argue with. I received a very beligerant battleground response from Nableezy [382], stating they would act on their timetable without regard to the ongoing discussion or a consensus that developed to allow more time to find sources.

I've shown above I am willing to work with Nableezy and am definitely not their ideological opponent. But if this is the way they react to those that are trying to work with them, but want to also work with others to find a consensus and smooth discussions, they are never going to be able to work with others that oppose them. And this was a very small compromise.  // Timothy :: talk  02:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in, that's exactly what is needed. However, I think you are misreading the situation. Obviously Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran is covered by the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions, and obviously an article with that title concerns countries allied against Iran. That, combined with ARBPIA, mean that it is unacceptable to add Morocco with no verification. Nableezy said they were happy to wait a week (to see if verification was available) and that is perfect behavior. An article like that should not prominently list Morocco as a member of an alliance against Iran without a source. The claim is not a minor issue that can bubble away for a month. The wiki way is to have a brief discussion, decide that no source is available, then remove "Morocco". It could be mentioned in the article that Morocco has also normalized relations with Israel, but saying it's part of an alliance against Iran is wrong. Waiting a week but not a month is not battlegrounding. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

My main concern is that Nableezy is willing to fight over issues, even with editors that basically agree with them, when a simple compromise would smooth the path to what is ultimately their position.  // Timothy :: talk  04:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is their latest response [383]. Even if they are correct, this is clear battleground attitude and it is a problem that will only make the situation worse and prevent collaborative editing.  // Timothy :: talk  04:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not "battlegrounding" to ask for material to pass WP:V. It is the most basic requirement of any content in the mainspace. I will absolutely be more polite and cordial and refrain from saying things like genius dismissively. I will not however just sit by as our core policies are ignored. WP:V is non-negotiable, and I dont intend to negotiate on compliance with the very lowest bar for material published as an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 04:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You are ignoring Consensus building and assuming you are the sole judge of V. Also even if you are correct, editing in a manner that goes against behavioral guidelines and policies is not acceptable.  // Timothy :: talk  05:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I very much am not editing in such a manner. WP:V explicitly allows for the removal of material that is unverifiable, without waiting a week. Nothing in WP:CON overrides that. I am not the sole judge of WP:V, and I never pretended I was. If anybody wants to offer up an argument that the material is verifiable they can do that. If we disagree we can take it to OR/N or whatever else makes sense. But without a verifiable citation I am perfectly entitled to remove material, and anybody restoring it a. needs to add an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material (WP:BURDEN), and b. will need consensus (WP:ONUS). This is not some social media site where the only thing that matters is whether or not we make friends. This is an encyclopedia, and yes the bare minimum requirement for material in this encyclopedia is that it be verifiable. I have not edited in a manner that goes against or guidelines and policies. Hell this is the first time ever Ive had my behavior described as perfect. I appreciate outside views, I appreciate you engaging there. But that does not mean that making edits you disagree with (but not really cus you aint even saying the material passes WP:V) is somehow battlegrounding or a violation of our behavioral guidelines. nableezy - 05:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Timothy, WP:BATTLEGROUND is chiefly about: Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions. I don't see how that's the case here. Nableezy agreeing to give more time for discussion to mature is good enough. That is the compromise, at least for now. They are not obliged to water-down their conception of the verifiability for the contested change. That is a content, not a behavioural, matter. El_C 11:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I hesitate to say ‘welcome aboard’, Timothy , but your willingness to step in is indeed good news, though one needs a high boredom threshold. The place can be a timesink. We are all focusing on Nableezy here, but the page concerned has this background of shared triumphalism at a coordinated victory over a putative ‘Palestinian’ (really?) who, in two editors view, uses ‘anti-Israel’ antisemitic sources, when he did nothing of the sort.

Nothing Nableezy has written comes anywhere near that chuckling glee at winning what the two regard as a battleground situation. A lot of stuff like that enters one’s reading of a talk page, without one troubling to report what is a gross W P:AFG violation. I think there is far too much scope on Wikipedia for private research, WP:OR. Best practice is to add nothing to this encyclopedia unless you have a solid source at your elbow. On a contemporary topic like this, what evidence there is is not ferreted away in archives (we often wait or search for months) but almost invariably online. Where disputes are frequent, the precise reading of policy is central. WP:Consensus has it that,Except in cases affected by content policies or guidelines, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position.' Removing a claim that no one has been able to verify Still this is not the place to argue that here, but rather the article talk page, where if I can get time, I will try to help out. Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I, too, don't think there's any battleground issues in that section, at a skim. Instead, it appears nableezy is focusing on content, which appears commendable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a palpable anger and hostility from Nableezy that I found very apparent on that page, and I think that's what TimothyBlue and others are reacting to. I can recognize it when I see it, having dealt with issues managing frustration. However, the "social media" comments are disrespectful and over the line. This indicates an anti-collaborative attitude and is basically calling other editors unserious. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There is quite literally no anger or hostility from me there. And please dont put words in my mouth. Thank you. nableezy - 17:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's seriously condescending at best, and the obligation to be friendly to others is not limited to "social media." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, please dont put words in my mouth. nableezy - 18:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: A red herring is being used here: I am not asking for anyone to water down the standards of V; as I said I generally am in agreement with Nab on the Muscovy issue. Asking for more time has nothing to do with whether the sources will meet V. I'm trying to setup a neutral and orderly process to resolve disputes, not subvert policies and guidelines.

What I have proposed is simple [384]: Nab has tagged the content, now leave it alone for a while (a month) and if no sources have been found, it should be removed. Nothing to do with V, everything to do with giving those that support inclusion a clear chance to find sources and if those sources are not found it will be removed without any dispute. We're not talking about V, we're talking about the time frame for those that wish to try and find sources that meet V; this is not a BLP that requires prompt action – there is nothing special about one week or one month. The only difference is one month is indisputably enough time to find sources and will firmly resolve the issue. This is an entirely reasonable compromise, one that will resolve the dispute and one the other "side" has accepted. I'm not acting as arbiter or judge; I'm trying to stop the fighting and bring about something resembling collaborative editing. I thought this was an easy place both sides to compromise on a trivial matter (the time frame) and move forward and was hoping that this would set a precedent for other disputed content.

So far what I have experienced from Nab is hostility and aggression, and this is on an issue I basically agree with them about. That says something about how they are editing: they are fighting with someone who basically agrees with them. Why? What constructive purpose could this serve? An editor can be completely right on an issue, but completely wrong in how they deal with it. They not only want to "win" they want to win on their terms. This is a problem; it is when WE does it and it is when Nab does it. They have also continued their habit of petty taunts and condescension. [385],[386], which it should be clear from the discussion above is not acceptable.

Battleground is about how you're editing, civility, your willingness to work with others. Both sides are clearly carrying on an ideological battle. I'm the only one without a predetermined opinion. I strongly believe the community should support editors attempting neutral dispute resolution in these heated areas. I can't do this alone: support will not only make the task easier, it is essential. If this attempt (as a whole, not just this one issue) fails, I think eventually this will reach arbcom and one or more people will be topic banned which will be unfortunate and unnecessary. Even if it does not come to this, failure here will only reinforce, not help extinguish the Lord of the Flies atmosphere we need to bring under control in a lot of areas.

One personal note, I'm sticking my neck out into an area that if I make a mistake could result in a topic ban, I'm very hesitatnt to do this if the community is not willing to give me some support - again not on a content dispute, I'm not taking sides, but on my attempts to mediate and stop the fighting. I'm the only one to step up and try and work on this very unpleasant problem because its is obviously necessary.  // Timothy :: talk  16:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I havent been hostile or aggressive to you at all. Saying I am not going to wait a month to remove something that fails WP:V isnt hostile. Not agreeing to what you think should happen is not battlegrounding, and no less than 2 admins have agreed here that my waiting a week is more than sufficient. I am not trying to "win" anything, if anybody brings a source that supports the material then great. But if that does not happen I will indeed be removing the content. There is no ideological battle here, I dont actually care about this alliance at all, not one bit. I do care about our articles not including false material though, and Ill continue to edit to correct that where I see it. Not agreeing to demands not based on policy (dont remove bogus material for a month is one such demand) is not evidence of any battleground behavior. Not agreeing with you on the way forward does not make my position any less valid, especially when my position has the explicit support of policy. nableezy - 16:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: with all due respect you were hostile and aggressive to me at RSN not twenty minutes ago and when I advised you to walk back from the battleground behavior you denied that there was any basis to the claim just as you do here. Might I suggest that if all of these people who have nothing else in common are telling you the same thing perhaps it is true? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I invite anybody to look at RSN to see how bogus that accusation is. I asked you to back up a claim you made, and you responded in a way that can best be described as hysterical, saying I am not mature because I asked you a question. All these people? Look at this section. Every single person has agreed Timothy is incorrect on his take about "battlegrounding". This is getting unreal. nableezy - 16:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Just my two cents, take it or leave it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This is not about a single issue, especially at this point: it is about how editors are working together. I'm coming to the conclusion that my efforts at helping make this a collaborative and orderly discussion are going to be futile without some help. I think this may need to go to arbcom for consideration of how participants are conducting themselves in this area as a whole (not just this discussion). I'm very hesitant to get further involved in this with the way things are unfolding. Perhaps Arbcom can make my mediation efforts more successful. If it turns out the way the discussion is unfolding is proper then this is not something I want to be involved in; hopefully Arbcom can give me a conclusive answer. I hope more expereinced editors who have comment in this thread @El C, Johnuniq, ProcrastinatingReader, Black Kite, Zero0000, and Cullen328: comment on the overall situation and what they believe is best way forward.

Also does this thread need to be closed before an Arbcom complaint is filed? If so I request this thread be closed so an Arbcom report can be made.  // Timothy :: talk  17:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This all drifted into AE territory a while ago, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Sad but I think true.  // Timothy :: talk  17:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe you have massively escalated what was a very straightforward issue. This is a complaint by one editor against another. Arbcom has been there twice at least, and the result was to strengthen rule compliance, and raise a high bar for editing in the I/P area. For several years this has resulted in a notable easing of the chaotic and abusive atmosphere that reigned earlier. So far, these boards are fairly efficient, though this one case is egregious for making it look as though the mere laying of a case against another editor is proof of uncollaborative behavior so regardless of my own impression for one that Wikieditor is the most ill-informed (re the region and policy), unaccommodating personalizing bludgeoner in the I/P area over the last year, Nableezy is the one who strikes you as 'hostile'. hence ARBCOM, hence permabans all round- no solution since this area attracts people more interested in political vindications than encyclopedic hard yakka with background scholarship. Nableezy's style is (a) curt (b) and literalist re policy. He focuses on content and verification. You've, I believe from unfamiliarity, misread him taking an intuited tone in his brusque laconic style as indicative of enmity rather than impatience with things like the failure to respond precisely to the queries he and others make. All of this hyperescalation could have been avoided by simply the rest of us shutting up, letting the two in dispute argue their case, and then letting admins make a call, whatever: sanctions for one, or for both, depending on the relative weight of the problems discerned in either.Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani, you started off by telling TimothyBlue they were too unfamiliar with the topic area to comment here (and subsequently made amends for that remark). Now that they've actually made a foray into the topic area to get a better understanding of the dynamics, you are chastising them for it because you don't agree with the observations they've come out with. Hm.

As for me being the the most ill-informed (re the region and policy), unaccommodating personalizing bludgeoner in the I/P area over the last year,, Levivich opened a thread with you weeks ago about these kinds of comments, and you have only dug your heels in. If an ArbCom case is raised, Nishidani's behavior towards other editors should not be shielded from scrutiny. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Somebody needs to close this. Biggest lesson learned here was go to AE. Jesus, what a waste of time. nableezy - 18:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 18:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Vindication thy name is Nableezy! Guess you believe me now...? No, highly doubtful that there'll be an ARBPIA5 over this. We've put tons of work into WP:ARBPIA4, what is there to refine further anyway at this time. It's extremely unlikely the Committee would choose to intervene in a straight-forward WP:ACDS matter best handled through the prism of WP:AE. Is there really something here which we admins are unable to do? A scope to expand/narrow? Multiple (multiple) participants to handle all at once? Honestly, I think ArbCom has better things to do than this. But if someone has evidence that the topic area is truly out of control, I suppose an WP:RFAR is an option. Again, highly doubtful, though. El_C 18:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes El_C, you was right I was wrong. nableezy - 19:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• I intended to say WP:AE. I have little experience in this area (never want to have I know this will be unpleasnt) so I'm trying to read up on it and write a concise report they can act on. El C, I'm commpletely open to other options, but I need to know if Nableezy editing is considered appropriate for any area, especially one under DS sanctions. If it is, I'll accept it and move on, if not something needs to be done to stop the situation. If we want a collaborative constructive welcoming editing environment it is not happening here. This is not about content, it is about Nab's behavior and the way they interact with other editors; the diffs are very telling, looking at their overall editing in this area makes it very clear this is a problem.  // Timothy :: talk  19:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Consider this sequence Timothy.

• I think they have both earned a topic ban, even if this wasn't a DS area. // Timothy :: talk 15:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Second thoughts re Nableezy: This comment [62] by Nableezy deserves a lot of credit. Its very different from their initial comments. // Timothy :: talk 21:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Change to oppose topic ban for nableezy. I think they know they got too heated, said things they should have phrased differently and will take this as a lesson learned and work to keep things more civil in the future. Wikieditor19920's comments have clarified things for me. I believe given all of Wikieditor19920 history and now this, they have earned a topic ban if not a site ban. // Timothy :: talk 22:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• I see Nableezy admitting they need to do better, I'm seeing Wikieditor19920 doubling down. Still strongly support a topic ban for Wikieditor19920. // Timothy :: talk 01:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm reading it (response to Wikieditor). I think it demonstrates a battleground mentality, no self reflection on how you are contributing to the problem, and total lack of willingness to LISTEN. I think you will go right back to editing in this way which will perpetuate the problem, where I think Nableezy may make an effort to change (if they don't they will end up back here). That's why I think you need a topic ban and Nableezy should get another chance. As I stated before: you convinced me of this, not Nableezy. You are your own worst enemy here. // Timothy :: talk 05:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• My main concern is that Nableezy is willing to fight over issues, even with editors that basically agree with them, when a simple compromise would smooth the path to what is ultimately their position. // Timothy :: talk 04:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you should just stand back a little. What we need is consistency, but flexibility in judgment according to evidence also. Here however, you went for banning both, then excusing Nableezy, while arguing wikieditor was the one needing a topic ban. After a half a day on just one disagreement with Nableezy (and some admins agree with his call) you are thinking of reporting Nableezy at AE, and, oddly Wikieditor's deserving a topic ban disappears (just as he did when you raised that last point). You need to watch this area, and behavior a little longer than 2 days to grasp its dynamics surely? I say this with full awareness that this area can be very stressful even on those with the best good will.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Nishidani, You are right, I listened to them both, I tried to asg and was persuaded that Nab would work with others. They have proved me wrong. All the above sequence showed is I wanted to give them every possible chance to change. Now we go to AE.  // Timothy :: talk  21:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Somebody not agreeing to your demands does not make them unable to work with others. Ive already compromised here, as noted by El_C, by saying Ill give it a week. That you think that a month is more appropriate to keep inaccurate material in an encyclopedia article for whatever arbitrary reason you have for picking a month doesnt mean that a. thats correct, or b, anybody else has to follow that view. But sure, feel free to go to AE. I am happy to respond to anything you wish to report me at AE for. Should be interesting given the responses youve already gotten from admins here about this issue, but sure do yo thang. nableezy - 22:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure youve already gotten two responses from admins about the idea that my saying I will remove material that fails WP:V in a week being "battlegrounding" or "problematic". They both said no. You want to take it to AE feel free. Fairly certain that will get the same answer a third time, but who knows. nableezy - 20:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Just to toss more into the fire, at AE there is a user who was brought multiple times for being hostile and uncivil, and received many "final" warnings. For better or worse, both here and at AE, being civil isn't really pushed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, ARBPIA4 appears to have been mostly technical and cleanup (it didn't discuss any particular editors), which makes the last time ArbCom visited particular PIA editors 2015. AE can probably deal with a lot, but it focuses on particular editors rather than a holistic review of the evidence. I personally think the topic area would benefit from ArbCom's attention (who did good work on the Kurds case), as Levivich indicates above, but not this particular dispute alone. A review of exactly how effective the existing ARBPIA general sanctions are would also be a good idea, I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, can do does not always mean will do. The GS in SCW technically allowed admins to take broad measures but none did, culminating in ArbCom announcing its series of remedies. No answer as to why exactly, but as a total guess I'd say the structure of a case probably helps, and a body can do more than an individual. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

A quorum of AE admins is a body, but no one's gonna stop you from filing an RfAR, if that's what you're set on. Personally, doesn't make a difference to me, either way. Just advising. El_C 20:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't have such a degree of interest in this dispute or topic area (at least not to that level), and I think one case filing is enough for me hopefully, but just saying I won't be surprised if ARBPIA5 happens this year or next. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe...? Who knows. Again, it's all the same to me. I've already got all the "related content" (etc.) bells and whistles from 4. If the Committee at some point in the future feels that a mass purge-driven 5th iteration is due, okay, I guess. El_C 20:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Do they have to have been issued a DS notice within the last year to file an AE or do their comments above indicate they are aware of DS sanctions?  // Timothy :: talk  20:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

They actually added a DS notice here to the page in question in response to Johnuniq comment above. 21:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the reference was to WP:AWARE, Timestamp. I've actually asked to Committee about that recently (Link), but was told to wait for DS reforms where this will also be addressed. El_C 21:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You can consider me perpetually aware of the sanctions lol. nableezy - 21:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• El C, I wish to take this to AE, I believe the OP wants to go to AE also. Does this need to be closed prior to opening an AE request?  // Timothy :: talk  22:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It does not. nableezy - 22:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearing the air around conversations like [387] this strikes me as a worthwhile exercise.Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• New Problems: There are already 5 active threads discussing nableezy concerns. With the amount of discussion going on it is going to take some time to resolve these. They continue to add tags and with their 1 week and I remove it policy there will not be enough time to discuss all the tags they are adding and changes they are making before their 1 week deadline is up and they start removing things. They are creating an impossible situation and it is disruptive.  // Timothy :: talk  23:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If 7 different statements fail verification, guess what, Im going to tag 7 statements. When I add a tag I explain why on the talk page. For different issues there are different sections. You seem much more concerned with the number of sections than with the fact that so much of that article fails verification. Seems backwards to me but thats just me. But since the tags were disruptively removed Ill just delete the content that fails verification tomorrow. Works for me. nableezy - 00:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you will find that they are not "new" problems. Are you going to file AE?Selfstudier (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am under the impression I cannot file at AE until this is closed. If an admin tells me otherwise I will file. I have a report written. But if it is filed it will be rejected because resolution here is pending.  // Timothy :: talk  00:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Then file it. nableezy - 00:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If anything was happening here, I would be inclined to agree with you but it all seems to have ground to an inconclusive halt so there's your excuse, should one be needed. The "principals" seem to want you to do it? Selfstudier (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy has opened 5 discussion threads at this article in the past 36-48 hours and applied about half a dozen inline tags. They are also making overlapping, repetitive arguments with the same belligerent tone across all 5 threads and then some. Before Nableezy started bludgeoning the hell out of this article, Selfstudier was doing the same thing. He restored an article-wide tag four times against the objections of two editors and a 7-1 consensus against. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You removed a failed verification tag on a statement where neither of the two cited sources support the claim made. Again, plainly tendentious editing. nableezy - 00:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove any tag.  // Timothy :: talk  00:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy was replying to Wikieditor. The tag in question is for the source that you filed at RSN for an opinion, isn't that so?Selfstudier (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, could this thread be closed so that an AE complaint can be opened?  // Timothy :: talk  00:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, I do not want to get any further involved with this sprawling mess at this time. It should be closed by a completely uninvolved administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: "I did not remove any tag"—Nableezy's comment is indented correctly to indicate they are replying to Wikieditor19920. Rather than faked civility, highly contentious topics need accuracy. Your claims of "battlegrounding" are wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, Just so I am clear, Nableezy can unilaterally tag and remove as much content in the article as the unilaterally judge isn't accurate, without discussion, and this is not disruptive? I just need clarity. I know I can only revert 1 of their removals per day.  // Timothy :: talk  00:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This narrative of the bumbling but polite editors against the hard-nosed expert is very compelling—and totally false. Nableezy has made non-sensical arguments at this and numerous other pages (Nobody bats a hundred.). At this one, he's currently re-applying a "failed verification" tag to a cite that uses the exact language next to the proposition it supports. If this is the same falsehood that's going to be spun at AE I don't see anything coming of it. I do think a cooling off period for Nableezy would be helpful -- and I'm not suggesting anything involuntary, but I am saying I recognize the pitch has increased significantly at this page following Nableezy's involvement in it, concurrent with this ANI.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

These matters can be discussed at AE, 500 words, 20 diffs and all that.Selfstudier (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe AE could be persuaded to transfer all this, lock stock and barrel, over there? As a non precedent setting exceptional one off exercise, of course.Selfstudier (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

But without the word/diff limit and structured discussion, it'll just be ANI, basically. So what would be the point in changing venues? El_C 01:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

In lieu of a close. Use it as a convenient reference point and ask participants to file their reports in the customary manner? Would that work?Selfstudier (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I'm not sure creativity is really called for here (why?). There should be one AE report, where I assume this ANI discussion will be linked to and quoted from by whomever. El_C 01:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Timothy is waiting for this to be closed so that he can file an AE report. You want to go ahead and do that? nableezy - 01:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Timothy wants to file one but thinks this one needs to be closed first (true?) and no-one wants to close it apparently. Could you close it recommending it should go to AE for a decision? Then it's up to whoever to file.Selfstudier (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Meh. Feeling too lazy right now. I'd rather watch dumb stuff on YouTube, tbh. To that: just finished watching Man Crashes Truck Through Court To Steal $10 — it happens twice! El_C 01:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Heh.™Selfstudier (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Timothy, what's the worst that can happen? Your report gets bounced and you are in the same position as you are now.Selfstudier (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Final Comment: No AE from me, I've decided to pretty much throw in the towel. I started here 17 months ago recoving from a serious health problem; then right as I was doing better the pandemic kept me pretty much locked down due to age and health; this was a welcome hobby during that time. I received my second vaccine a couple of weeks ago and my health in general is doing a bit better. I'm looking forward to life in Los Angeles going back to normal. I might be back occasionally if I see something I want to do (or when I have health problems that keep me at home). For now I'm going to take a stroll down Hollywood Blvd listening to the Doors.

Perhaps this was as it was always intended, I started working on an 9 part Bibliography of Russian and Soviet history and I finished the last part last week. Its what I'm most proud of. Russian history now has the second best set of bibliographies next to US History on Wikipedia.

• Wikieditor19920, sadly I think Nableezy tactics have won, dont risk a topic ban, I would just let Nableezy do to the article what they want, its not worth risking a topic ban and discussion is futile. I am deeply sorry I misjudged the situation regarding you and Nableezy as badly as I did. It was an honest mistake, I really thought they were open to working collaboratively with others and thought I could help (my "fake civility" as Johnuniq views it) and I was wrong.
• El C, sorry I dropped the ball on mentoring SoyokoAnis. I left a message on their talk page at User talk:SoyokoAnis#ANI update; hopefully they will find another mentor. In talking with them they really do want to learn.
• Johnuniq: you should be ashamed of calling my efforts "faked civility"; I'm far from perfect but there is nothing fake about my civility. I genuinely didn't expect that, especially from you, and it really hit hard. Don't bother trying to excuse yourself, I won't be here to read it.
• I hope someone will continue watching Talk:Uyghur genocide, its had a lot of problems with socks and bad actors trying to erase the victims and this will continue. Page protection runs out in a few days and the new accounts will run wild. Muslim erasure is a huge problem on Wikipedia and I've tried to work on preventing it.
• @Selfstudier and Wikieditor19920:, I will leave me notes for AE here User:TimothyBlue/AENotesNab if you want to use them; I wouldn't bother its simply not worth it.
• Admins: You get the kind of editors you deserve. You've lost a lot of dedication and experience today all for lack of engagement. I might not have been using the word "battleground" correctly, maybe I should have used different words, but you will see the results and can label it whatever you wish.
• Nableezy it looks like you won. Congrats, run wild, have fun. Its sad for Wikipedia your tactics have won, but you have clearly won. Show the admins what you can do.
• Everyone have fun editing in a bad parody of Lord of the Flies.  // Timothy :: talk  02:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, you're reading my comment wrongly. It was nothing to do with you. Unfortunately my "Rather than faked civility" comment was sandwiched betweed two sentences; the comment applies to the last sentence. That last sentence concerns the issue at the article where someone on one side of the ARBPIA battle is being civil while insisting that content which (apparently) fails verification should remain in the article, while someone on the other side is insisting they will (after waiting) remove such content. That sort of thing happens all the time in topics under discretionary sanctions—call it forced civility on one side if you like, but onlookers like you and me should not mistake the civility on one side as meaning their points are valid. Bear in mind that the other side is also civil—insisting on removing failed-verification content is good, not uncivil. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I've been saying that most AE reports don't belong at AN/ANI for years, largely because of the no word/diff limit + freeflow discussion, which usually amounts to downard spiral dead end. But does anyone listen, still? This is a perennial problem. Anyway, if someone wants to close this latest ARBPIA-at-ANI mess per my "Analysis", I don't mind.

Timothy, I don't understand why instead of first dipping your toe in the ARBPIA waters, you went straight for the Mariana Trench. I hope you reconsider leaving over this, because you will be missed and this isn't worth it. I think you just need to pace yourself better. Yours, El_C 03:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue made minor edit suggestions -- barely even edits -- to a PIA article that is weeks old and receives less than 300 views a day. I don't even know that I would call that a wet toe, let alone a trench. That's why I'm sure the torrent of objections/filibustering/abuse at Talk:Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran came as a shock. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, a low key page like Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran — gotcha. El_C 04:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, diffs + quote of said "abuse," please. El_C 04:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Low key. Diffs of problematic behavior. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

So, not even a single quote, then? I see. Also, I don't think you understand what low key means. Something which those countries deem an existential threat is not low key. Low key would be to attend to ARBPIA issues in an article like, say, Hummus. Finally, can you believe I joined Wikipedia in 2004, became an admin in 2005, and yet not once have I ever used a toolforge link for anything? Must be something wrong with me. El_C 04:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Were the 20 diffs and all the quotes provided on this page enough? Tell me, did you once ask Nableezy to provide a single diff for all the times they called me incompetent, or my edits shit? Or did you provide any diffs when you suggested in your above "analysis" that I suffered from CIR issues so basic that an editor with 10k edits shouldn't?

By the way, Nableezy is now gaming 1RR at Arab states-Israeli alliance against Iran. They just performed a second, contested revert literally minutes outside the 24 hour window, and removed a longstanding version of the title. They claimed a WP:V objection despite four available sources using such language.

At Palestinian enclaves, when an RfC showing plurality support for a wording in the change wasn't enough in Nableezy's view, you said that closure was required. I wonder if the same standard will be applied here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I provided diffs. I opened this section three years ago with diffs of your personal attacks. Quotes too. I provided diffs in the CIR report too. Did I need to provide diffs on my own user talk page? I can if you really want me to. As far as second reverts, I dont really know if my original reduction in categories that have sub-categories on the page really qualifies as my first revert. I kinda think it would be stretching the definition of revert pretty far to call that one. It was an abundance of caution that I refrained from reverting earlier. Not sure how you think thats a problem, but thats just me. nableezy - 05:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Undoing categories other editors added is a revert. Removing a longstanding title is a revert. Casually throwing around WP:CIR accusations and then providing diffs of edits showing subjective disagreements is nothing more than a PA, and admins like El_C should call out this behavior. Unfortunately, as with all else that's been raised in this thread, it's gone unsanctioned, ignored, or explained away in almost every instance. As for these "diffs" Nableezy provided, he claimed my entire edits in the PIA area were shit and then linked two changes I made to the lead and short description of an article. This user is boasting what they can get away with at this point. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

But I didnt actually undo any categorizations. Each of the removed categories has a sub-category already on the page. I dont want to say competence again, but I made a technical change, not a categorization one. The article is still in each category that I removed the Cat:whatever for. I dont really think that qualifies as a revert, but in case any wikilawyer disagreed I waited it out. As far as shit, please dont make things up. I very specifically said I dont revert the edits I see you make that I think are fine. And those were just the two most blatant. I think a lot of your edits qualify, though I wouldnt call them that outside of my own user talk page, despite the insinuation this has been occurring over and over. nableezy - 06:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your justification for the revert is irrelevant to whether it was a revert. Oh, and more on the WP:BLUDGEONING on the talk page: Nableezy opened five discussion threads and is quite literally arguing, and repeating, the same points in all of them, to the point where they are no longer even following the subheaders they wrote. Many of their comments are literally posting in five different sections at a time, doing so over and over again with the same, often frivolous points. Trying to keep Nableezy from shaving down the article to a nub is like trying trying to put a finger in the dyke, to use another water-based analogy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It actually is. And I actually opened 4 sections, about 4 different problems. Its almost as if youre more upset that Ive identified issues with an article than with there being so many issues with an article. If you think its frivolous then dont participate. This report really should die though. If you have a problem with an edit Ive made you can use the talk page. If you think Ive somehow gamed the 1RR AE is open 24/7. nableezy - 06:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You are raising "issues" that range from the subjective to frivolous (suggesting four sources is not enough to pass WP:V) and arguing them in a manner that takes up the entire talk page and makes it impossible to navigate. I've provided the diffs here, because the fact that you are gaming 1RR in this manner with an active ANI report suggests a disregard for the rules that should be considered for the above proposal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If none of those sources are reliable or if they dont directly support the material then yes there is still a WP:V issue. Im sorry you disagree with what WP:HEADLINES says, I cant help you there. I also dont think the earlier edit qualifies as a revert as I retained the categorization, I just fixed the technical issue of parent cats and sub-cats being on the same page. I dont see the point in arguing the content here though. Theres still a talk page section where I answered your list of sources, and where I found my own to make the material still be salvageable if not quite in the way it was presented previously. Im going to bed tho, so good luck with agitating for a ban. nableezy - 06:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor, on 13 March, your first edits to the article included the removal of an article wide verifiability tag that was the subject of an active RFC that had been running for a week. Subsequent events have shown not only that the tag was entirely appropriate but more to the point, you unilaterally decided to enforce your view of the situation before the RFC had run it's course and subsequently turned the page (and my talk page) into a combat zone in order to justify your removal of the tag. Rather than get dragged into yet more pointless discussions (as at Palestinian enclaves, Palestinian political violence and Israel/apartheid analogy articles) I decided on this occasion to walk away.Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, you said Timothy suffered "abuse." I asked for a diff+quote, but you evaded. You continue to evade. Yes, obvious and basic CIR issues, like a few days ago you thought an RFC was an informal discussion and, accordingly, you were ready to conclude a consensus for it (favouring your position) even though it wasn't closed yet (diff). Or, you continuing to conflate watchlists with hounding, even now, after everything. I'm sorry, but this does not inspire confidence. El_C 06:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, you just imposed a topic ban based on Selfstudier's complaint that I removed a tag, perhaps missing the fact that the tag was opposed by a 7-1 consensus on the talk page and objected to by two separate editors. You will look for whatever reason to justify defending the WP:UNBLOCKABLES, make up frivolous reasons to justify your clear favoritism, and demand "quotes" as if you'll even bother reading them. Sorry if 20 diffs doesn't make it easy enough to do your job, but clearly that job doesn't involve even behaving in a remotely even-handed or objective manner. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and this nonsense about me quoting WP:CLOSE instead of WP:RFCEND in a discussion weeks ago was just that -- nonsense. An RfC that showed a plurality favoring 1 of 3 options should've been enough to make a single edit without closure. But I've had enough with this anyway. The problem isn't just Nableezy, the problem is admins like El_C who aren't here to enforce order but to look out for their pals and act in ways that favor their friends instead of the community. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't presume to speak for me, Wikieditor19920. I also don't appreciate your WP:ASPERSIONS about me. Finally, if you think Nableezy is my "pal," maybe have a glance at this. In any case, your appeal does not go here. Re-closing. El_C 15:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SoyokoAnis and tagging

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SoyokoAnis is a new editor who is overly eager and engaging in areas they lack the competence to edit in, resulting in nothing short of disruption. They have been given ample guidance by admins and experienced editors and ignored advice and direct warnings, even though they've acknowledged them. They don't appear to be interested in actually learning from their mistakes as they continue to make them and double down when called out.

• Following Ferrets final warning to stop inappropriate CSD tags, they tagged this A1, which very clearly does not apply.
• Then we have this lackluster response to an inappropriate page move.
• Tag bombing one minute, two minutes and three minutes after article creation and doubled down after I warned them.
• Tag bombing 2 minutes after creation with a completely inappropriate tag
• Tagging a1/a7 where A1 is clearly not applicable, just minutes after creation and after their tag bombing of maintenance templates just 4 minutes after creation
• tag bombing minutes after creation, while the creator was clearly actively editing and I'd argue this tag isn't even applicable
• disruptive and non-applicable tagging of a stub
• silly tags 4 minutes after creation
• very clearly not a1
• not a1

This isn't to say that the articles they're tagging don't have problems, just that the immediate rush to put tags that are often inappropriate is disruptive and this isn't even a comprehensive list, just a random recent selection. Combined with their responses and continued disruption, I am led to believe that the only option to prevent further disruption is a lengthy block no less than a year or two, if not indefinite as they appear to lack the competence to edit in the areas they do and do not have the maturity to know when they're in over their head. Hopefully a lengthy block will allow them to gain perspective and mature. CUPIDICAE💕 12:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There's also this attempt to circumvent @Billinghurst's good faith undeletion of a page for off-wiki recovery, where she then was preparing to submit the draft again. I support a CIR block at this time. She was also the one who pushed repeatedly on NASCARFan, against and in opposition of the advice of many experienced editors, and caused this. Since then she's made several edits about how she wants to be admin, including red-cat'ing her userpage and messaging others for mentorship. I fear her patrolling/tagging shows that she's read some RFA guide and is trying to tick the boxes. -- ferret (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There was also this stuff culminating in this. If community remedies are indeed needed, possibly instead a ban on any kind of maintenance/backspace activity (including tagging articles) would be a lesser and possibly acceptable solution? I'm not sure if SoyokoAnis has much interest in writing articles, but if so such a ban might help them develop their editing without causing the above issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I originally was going to suggest a ban but given their inability to take any sort of criticism and reflect on it, I don't see this as a viable option. There is also this request which is problematic because they're really just not reading the room (or the directions.) CUPIDICAE💕 13:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae Should I just stop tagging articles altogether? If so, please listen to what I have to say. What is the point of the New Pages Feed if I am gonna keep getting warned for using it? This is starting to get really annoying, it's in the new pages feed I'm gonna see it and see if it has issues and tag it. Most of the articles you stated still didn't fix their issues. Why do you keep coming after me for using the feed? SoyokoAnis - talk 13:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis Your tone deaf response to the concerns here is precisely why I think you should be blocked and demonstrates your inability to collaborate and listen to constructive criticism. It's pure disruption. CUPIDICAE💕 13:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

For the RFA nomination, I just wanted to help someone. I didn't know you had to be on Wikipedia for years and have lots of contributions to help. Either way, if it stops anyone from coming at me for tag warnings then I'll just stop tagging to avoid any more issues. I'm sorry. SoyokoAnis - talk 13:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The core issue here is that you aren't listening to experienced editors. For that RFA, numerous experienced editors advised you and the RFA Nom not to do it, that it would go badly, and said why, including the tenure and other experience. And you continued to push the editor to agree to the RFA, completely ignoring everyone. Your response to every warning thus far has been the same. People tell you not to do tagging, you continue in the exact same fashion with no change. This is why people keep "coming at you", because you continue to do the same things. -- ferret (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've partially blocked from the article space for 2 weeks, having done so prior to seeing the user's response above, however — which, unfortunately, doesn't inspire too much confidence, though hopefully, that is something which can also be overcome. El_C 13:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, now I remember the incident ferret describes that I was looking for (this).

The core issue here is an editor who is, without doubt, acting in good faith but does not quite understand the communal norms around here. We see this evidenced in this diff, where the editor says they've read the policies and dislike being treat as if they're clueless. The issue, of course, is that being able to apply policy well (or, at least, in the ways that the community wants it applied) is separate from reading policy. I feel like in such a case it's worth the editor asking themselves why they edit. Without an answer to that question, one can end up in the endless hole of policy enforcement without an overarching goal. Which manifests in, for example, the redundant tagging of stubs evidenced by Prax. However, I also see Prax's view that perhaps adequate self-reflection is not possible in this case (per WP:CIR), though I continue to hope that it is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a pretty sad (in the 'upsetting' sense) case for everyone involved. Overzealous tagging/rejection is one of the most damaging things possible on Wikipedia; effectively telling a new user their contributions are unwanted is a way to guarantee that unless they happen to have someone experienced in the project guiding them along (and there are ~3,000 active Wikipedians compared to ~40,000,000 "people who ever made an account", so you tell me the odds...), they will leave and never come back. (Or if you're very lucky come back in a decade.) SoyokoAnis is one of the people who managed to avoid being strangled in the crib, but is hitting another common wall of getting in too deep too early and attracting people's ire. A block for 'a year or two' is a permaban more thoroughly than any actual permaban would ever be -- few people who aren't already 'vested contributors' will sit and wait for that timer to expire rather than go find something else to do -- but there are very severe CIR concerns (competence is required // competence is acquired // but no one can sit around forever to wait for the acquisition) and any given tagbomber is probably a net negative. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion of a year or two was that they will hopefully mature with time. They obviously would have WP:SO too. This doesn't stop them from editing other projects that may be more suitable to their learning ability. I also don't see this (a block) as a detriment to the project if I'm being honest. They've said they don't have an interest in writing articles and thus far they have very few useful contributions. CUPIDICAE💕 14:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a complicated and unfortunate matter. My thought on block duration is that if SoyokoAnis is going to be blocked for a much longer duration than she currently is -- which is a possible outcome -- it might be more honest, if that makes sense, to indef rather than a 1-2 year block. Both have essentially the same outcome (someone either leaves forever or comes back a very long time later, at similar probability), but the indef block is probably more open to appeals and the SO, while an extremely long limited-duration block is an odd mix of "we aren't showing you the door, but we clearly don't want you here". My comment with regards to detriments to the project is more or less agreeing with you; new user retention goes both ways. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"effectively telling a new user their contributions are unwanted" Honestly, some of these articles are uncited stubs, and SoyokoAnis has a point in seeing them as problematic. I am more concerned with why the editor is adding tags to articles that are in the process of being written. No article can be considered up to standard within minutes of its creation. Dimadick (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I think this CIR issue may spread to AfD [388]; they've also attempted to sign up at AfC [389]; and they are giving advice at Teahouse [390].  // Timothy :: talk  14:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Second Comment: We have to do something, the temp block below is necessary, but I've been thinking about this and I would really like to see the community find a way to help this editor contribute productively. They clearly want to contribute, I think everything they are doing is in good faith, they just need help. I just don't feel good about this and I don't think anyone else does either. I'm not throwing stones at anyone, but I think many editors were aware of this problem and if some kind of helpful intervention had come sooner, we wouldn't be here. Yes they were warned, yes they should have asked for help, but we all could do better in these types of situations.

I know there is a problem, but I really hope we can find a good solution that hopefully keeps this editor. Again I'm not casting stones, Wikipedia collectively does a shitty job at developing and retaining editors, which is something the community should have a broad discussion about; if we want quality editing, we need to invest in developing quality editors.

SoyokoAnis, would you be open to some kind of mentorship to work on building and creating articles?  // Timothy :: talk  03:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue I urge you to read through the talk page messages she has removed for the full history, if you have not. While maybe not every message left to her was the utmost gentle, she has received nothing but relatively polite handwritten warnings and explanations, somehow avoiding a single templated warning. -- ferret (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

ferret, I know a site ban is justified (even before I saw the history). Perhaps a ban from everything but adding sourced content to existing articles? If they have shown productive editing at the end of a defined period of time, we can leave the ban and let them continue adding sourced content to existing articles. If they are not showing productive editing or if problems continue, the site ban can be implemented. But perhaps I need to be saved from my own good intentions by more experienced editors.  // Timothy :: talk  03:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Block extended, converted to sitewide

In light of these additional concerns from multiple users (involving additional namespaces), I've extended the block to 3 months and converted it to sitewide. Honestly, I'm wary to block for any longer at this time, but other admins should feel free to adjust this block action in any way they see fit (no notification or consultation with me is required). El_C 16:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: probationary mentorship offer

I told Prax earlier that nothing was set in stone about beefing up the sanction, and due to the above concerns, have done so. But I feel it is only fair, in this case, to also do so the other way — nerf if it calls for it. The notion of probationary mentorship, as opposed to one faced by an unsanctioned user, is that the mentor's focus largely fulfils the role of consulting on whether this or that is borderline-sanctionable activity. It doesn't matter that Timothy isn't an admin —they can turn to the noticeboard or me, personally, for any enforcement action— this is something that I feel he is qualified to handle. And he seems, well, not inherently opposed to the idea (direct link). I'm inclined to let both of them refine the formula, bring it back here for discussion, and then we go from there. But my first impulse is that this seems workable; that harmonizing all that energy, without the dissonance, is an undertaking worth pursuing. Thoughts? El_C 12:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: As El C said, I have made an offer to mentor SoyokoAnis with the condition that they focus solely on content improvement and creation and abstain from everything else. You can see the offer and their response in the above link from El C. I should disclose I have not mentored anyone before, I know this will be a challenge.

Since there is a site ban in place, there needs to be a consensus for it to be lifted and a indef topic ban put in its place. If there is a consensus to switch to a topic ban, it should be clear this is a final opportunity and any further disruption or violation of the topic ban will result in a site ban. I am open to any revisions to the conditions stated.

SoyokoAnis if a consensus emerges to replace the site ban with a topic ban you'll be notified and we can begin.  // Timothy :: talk  19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This was not a siteban, but a normal admin action only. That said, I welcome further input into the matter, and see no reason to rush this. El_C 21:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As a random passer-by, this seems like a good proposal. --JBL (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Same, seems like a reasonable way to deal with it. Given the strict "expand articles only" scope, it'd be easy to re-block if the don't stay within those bounds - but I do think she can become a productive editor, just needs more experience. Regardless, it's worth a shot. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd support the mentorship plan if SoyokoAnis is willing to learn. I know TimothyBlue is suited for the mentor role :-) Vikram Vincent 18:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: SoyokoAnis, its been a while for you to consider everything, what do you think (please ping me and El C)? I think there is enough support here, are you up for trying a mentorship?  // Timothy :: talk  02:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.